Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Beware conventional wisdom in innovation and digital transformation

One of my favorite quotes comes from Shaw, who said that all change in life originate from unreasonable people.  Reasonable people, he said, will accept the status quo and change their lives to adapt to the status quo.  Unreasonable people won't.  Unreasonable people force change rather than accept the status quo.  So, he argued, all change is dependent on unreasonable people. 

So it's interesting to me to read a completely reasonable list of "things to do" before implementing AI or any of the new digital transformation toolkit and think:  that's absolutely correct in theory and likely 100% wrong.  I thought that when I read the article entitled 3 Steps to Gear up for AI and the future of work.  The advice is meaningful and probably useful, conveyed thousands of times about new technologies or new approaches.  It advocates:
  1. Determine a Use Case for the new technology or approach
  2. Train people to be more proficient users of the new technology
  3. Start small - find small successes
This advice was true for the following list of management concepts:
  • ERP
  • Lean
  • Agile
  • Six Sigma
  • Doing business on the internet
 and I suspect many, many more.  It's not that conventional wisdom is wrong, it's just that there may be situations where the conventional wisdom may not be correct.

For innovation and digital transformation, perhaps we should be a bit more unreasonable.

Digital Transformation

First, we've skipped a step.  We need to define what digital transformation is, or what we think it is.  I'll define it as the implementation of a number of technologies (like AI, machine learning, blockchain, IoT, robotics, big data and so on) which transforms business processes and strategies.  Since each technology has a multitude of potential use cases, from generating new products and services to increasing revenue to cutting costs, we should be more circumspect about what the value proposition and use case is.  And, since most new technologies enter the mainstream market by creating greater efficiencies, perhaps we should more accurately ask:  what significant customer need can it address, or what significant inefficiency or cost can it remove? Further, how important or significant should the need or opportunity be?

They don't call it digital incrementalization.  They call it digital transformation.   The same is true for innovation.  We need to be thinking bigger.  The time to conduct small experiments around the fringe is over.  We need to use approaches and tools like digital transformation and innovation to solve important and urgent efficiency and cost needs, or to resolve major customer needs.  There's your "use case".

And yes, I've combined my response to the "use case" point and the "start small" point into one lengthy paragraph.  If by now your company cannot use innovation or digital transformation to do some big things, to create interesting new products or business models, or to radically transform the customer experience, the end is near.  The time for starting small was 5-10 years ago while innovation and digital transformation were still relatively new.  You cannot compete with other firms that are doing much larger or bolder experiments because the cycles of learning and implementation are collapsing.

John Boyd said it best in his OODA loop (Orient-Observe-Decide-Act).  If a competitor can progress through this loop faster than you can, you are a target, not an adversary. Starting small, experimenting and then scaling up is valuable when the technologies or capabilities are still new.  When everyone is doing them, it's time to make bigger bets.  Corporations need to be more agile, yes, and experiment, yes, but also must be able to scale quickly and implement quickly.


The article also advocates training.  There are several concerns I have with training, on new technologies such as AI or blockchain, or on innovation tools and methods.  While it always sounds appropriate to invest in training your people on tools and methods you need them to use, too often training isn't valuable or worse, it is wasted.  There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, training is the first corporate expense to get cut in lean times.  While deep, formal training is often valuable, it is also often hard to schedule and hard to justify. Training is never "top of mind" for people who are implementing technology, and is often difficult to acquire and schedule for those who should be using the new technology.

Second, training is often wasted in innovation work because we train people on innovation tools or methods but send them back to do their regular jobs.  If you want innovation training to be valuable, you need to train people on tools and methods they use immediately after the training.  Otherwise, don't bother, because the regular work cadence will soon cause them to ignore or forget anything new they've learned if they don't use it.

Third, training for digital transformation tools is also a bit difficult, because you first have to identify which method or tool you'll implement, what problem or need you are trying to solve, and how the method or tool creates insights or data or simplifies a process to solve the problem.  In many cases digital transformation may simply remove people from an activity, so the training they may need is training in a completely new role.  Other training requirements include the ability to implement the new technology - but it's probably better to hire this work rather than train people for it, and to be able to understand and assess the information that the digital tools create.  It's probably this last idea that is most useful, but also most contextual.  The insights that each digital technology provides and how the data is interpreted will be different in case by case basis.  It will require people with excellent data interpretation and contextual skills to interpret well.

What instead?

What if the right answers for innovation and digital transformation - at least at this point in history - aren't start small, train users and identify use cases - but instead the new conventional wisdom should be:
  1. Address wicked problems head on with the goal of completely solving them, focusing either on radical cost reduction or dramatic improvements in customer experience
  2. Think differently about training, in 3 dimensions:  buy the experience you need rather than train for it (technology), train people to understand the information presented by new tools and methods, prepare to train people for new jobs and roles once their existing jobs are eliminated
  3. Start big and go bigger - the pace of change doesn't allow small, continuous experiments when technologies and capabilities are relatively mature.  Go big or stay home.
Perhaps the answer is to be unreasonable, to aim for the stars, rather than to settle for low earth orbit.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 10:43 AM 0 comments

Monday, February 18, 2019

Why digital transformation will drive business model innovation

As a follow up to my previous post about the intersection of digital transformation and innovation, I wanted to conduct a thought experiment to illustrate why the real impact of all the impending change from digital transformation and innovation will be business model related.  While the implementation of new technologies is interesting and challenging, and creating new products and services is daunting, at least you can still do that primarily if not exclusively in your existing business model.  What happens when the business model is no longer viable?

Using GM as an example

To illustrate this point let's consider General Motors, or for that matter any car company.  These companies are the bedrock of the manufacturing prowess of the United States and other developed economies, and create jobs for the core company and for a long tail supply chain.  Does digital transformation and innovation have any potential impact on their business?  You be the judge.

Shift in car acquisition

If consumer tastes change and if autonomous vehicles (which are just specialized robots) become a more compelling offering, consumers will likely view transportation as a service.  Rather than acquire cars as assets with high prices and rapid depreciation, and ongoing maintenance, consumers are more likely to simply acquire rides.  Uber and Lyft are simply the transition point, where we use other people's cars to get rides.  As this movement gains steam, and autonomous vehicles gain traction, it's increasingly likely that individuals don't acquire cars, they pay for transportation or miles traveled.

This means that 1) the number of cars purchased is likely to fall, because the existing cars are used more efficiently and 2) individuals and families acquire fewer cars.  In this case the dealer network increasingly becomes obsolescent, and sales of new cars move to fleet sales.


If sales move from individual buyers to fleets, financing models change.  Most car companies make a profit from both the sales of the vehicle and also financing a loan.  If fewer individuals acquire car loans, financing profits fall.  If large corporations offer transportation services, the financing may simply be transferred to larger organizations, but those larger organizations will demand lower interest rates, making financing less profitable.  Thus the large automotive companies may take another hit from losing some financing margin.

Shifts in branding?

If you don't actually drive the car, do you care about its performance?  Most of us don't really take advantage of the zero-60 acceleration or tight suspensions of some higher end luxury cars anyway.  As the car becomes an automated commodity, how does BMW and Mercedes differentiate its autonomous vehicle from Kia or Hyundai?  The real battle will be on interior options and luxury on one hand, and utility and carrying capacity on the other hand.  How companies differentiate their cars and their companies will have to change.

 Supply Chain

During all of this transition to autonomous vehicles or ride services, digital transformation is also changing the supply chain.  Blockchain and IoT provide greater oversight into where components are made and sourced, and big data helps identify cost issues, leading to more pressure on the supply chain.  New technology entering the car to manage issues like lidar, steering, acceleration and so forth introduce new supply chain members which provide far more value than the traditional supply chain members.  Older members of the supply chain providing simpler components feel increasing pressure to automate and cut costs, while newer members bring far more technology savvy and agility.  The supply chain will be under increasing pressure to reduce costs while increasing technology and flexibility.

All the while artificial intelligence and machine learning are providing insights into consumer behavior and usage and identifying issues within the supply chain and the manufacturing process.  This means constant updates to how car parts and cars themselves are designed, manufactured and assembled.  Production lines are constantly reconfigured to adjust to new insights from AI and ML, which conflicts with older union work rules. 

What happens?

In the end GM and other car manufacturers may need to be able to survive selling fewer cars to a much smaller buying public made up mostly of corporations offering rides as a service.  They will differentiate through lower service costs and may lose much of their branding as autonomous vehicles become a white good, branded by the service provider.  The car companies will have to survive with lower profits from financing and flat to slowly decreasing sales.  The dealer network may become obsolete, and with enough 3-D printing and CAD modeling even the after market for car parts may become less attractive.

While this is a radical departure from GM's model today it is not that alarmist. Many of these conditions are already apparent and emerging or will occur shortly.  Digital Transformation, ubiquitous connectivity, the capacity to store, process and manage large data volumes and consumers shifting desires are already having an impact.  And this is just for the car companies.  We haven't even scratched the surface of the secondary and tertiary markets for fueling, insurance, driver's education, taxis and many other transportation issues.

Everything resolves at the business model.  GM can make money in any of these scenarios, but the business models for the way they operate today, and the way they may need to operate in the near future are exceptionally different.  Want to know why Ford and GM are getting out of the sedan business?  So they can make enough money on their trucks and SUVs to put a down payment on the dramatic changes that are necessary for them to survive.

Whether we are talking about digital transformation or innovation, everything resolves to the business model.  We need better tools and new ways of thinking about how the business model can and will evolve, and how to shift from the existing business model to the required new business models before these shifts occur.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 8:04 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

At the digital transformation and innovation crossroads

I went to a meeting about innovation earlier this week with a former client and a discussion about digital transformation broke out.  It was both interesting and strange at the same time.  Most corporations are struggling to comprehend the changes in front of them, but at the same time are so fixated on short term thinking that they struggle to see the tsunami that is emerging just over the horizon.  They know it's there.  They know they should prepare.  They just don't have the time to consider it or the contextual frameworks to understand it.

Most larger corporations have arrived at a crossroads, and not by their own making or decisions.  Change is being thrust upon them.  As Gary Hamel wrote - ..we are the first generation in history where the pace of change has gone hyper-critical within our lifetimes.  In other words, most corporations are arriving at a cross-roads, not because of any strategic decisions or actions they took.  The corporations didn't change.  The conditions and circumstances did.  And what happens when corporations with business models and structures and governing capabilities built for slower change and market dominance meet the agile, nimble competitors and shifting customer expectations at this unexpected crossroads? 

Where innovation and digital transformation meet

Let's add in, of course, two really interesting management phenomena occurring before our eyes.  Innovation has been a watchword for corporations for about 20 years.  I've suggested previously that the innovation era began in roughly 1997, when Jobs returned to Apple and when Christensen published the Innovator's Dilemma.  From that time until this, innovation has entered management philosophy and has become an often cited if not always executed concept for large corporations.  Innovation has been around long enough to have lived through one or two generations of management, but it hasn't overcome the concurrent pressures of efficiency, cost reduction, outsourcing and a host of other activities focused on efficiency and effectiveness. 

Innovation seems almost "long in the tooth" and has less tangible outcomes than you might expect.  It meets the emerging digital transformation movement head on.  Digital transformation is inevitable.  Once we have enough devices and enough connectivity, consumers will generate more and more data, and corporations will find ways to use that data and create more connectivity.  Becoming digital isn't enough however.  Digitalization will just lead on to digital transformation - including the underlying technologies, better use of the data that is generated but more importantly radical change of business models.

Business models, channels, data and experiences

So where does innovation and digital transformation meet?  Perhaps in more interesting but in hindsight relatively obvious places.  The problem with innovation to date has been a fixation on product innovation, constantly updating or inventing new products, but with little exploration beyond the product.  What most people fail to realize about interesting innovators of the last 20 years is that they innovated products AND experiences AND business models.  And this is something that many people clamoring for digital transformation don't understand either - the ultimate and most important change will be in guessed it, the business model.

Take for example the automotive industry.  Today most car companies make money selling cars (and make most profits in financing those sales) to individuals who own the car as an asset.  Families expect to have a house and two cars, which if we looked closely at usage we'd realize that most cars are used extensively about 2-3 hours a day at most.  The majority of the time cars are parked and unused.  No business would allow a valuable asset to be so underutilized.

Now, with autonomous cars families need fewer cars, because they can call on Uber, or an autonomous car service, and pay for usage rather than ownership.  This is a dramatic business model change.  The product is incrementally different - perhaps an electric engine and autonomous controls but still a car - but Detroit's business model will be different.  They won't sell lots of cars to lots of families and finance those sales to individuals.  They'll sell fewer cars to more service-oriented organizations with different financing needs. 

Business Models in the cross roads

Where innovation - a bit long in the tooth but not fully or adequately deployed in most organizations - and digital transformation - still an emerging concept that is really a number of technologies that are more or less ready for prime time - will collide, and where businesses will need to change, is in the business model.  Innovation has long argued that it has a role in business model change, but often innovation hasn't had the right to address business models.  Digital Transformation may seem like an IT oriented activity, but it will create change that impacts the business model. 

There's no better place to think about these two management philosophies and how they will work together than to think about how they'll impact the necessary business model changes that will be required in the next 5-10 years. 

Are you thinking about how your business model needs to change, to be more competitive as innovation, customer demands, competitive threats and shifts caused by digital transformation occur?  Product innovation will seem child's play by comparison, but business model change will be the real opportunity.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 5:10 AM 0 comments

Thursday, February 07, 2019

Why Apple can't innovate anymore

Yes, it is a provocative title.  And no, I don't quite know if it is true.  But it does make one stop and think, doesn't it?  What if the avatar for innovation over the last decade is exhausted?  What if Apple has done all the innovation it can do?  An interesting thought, wouldn't you say?

What Apple now has in common with other large companies

Innovation is easier when an organization is smaller and more nimble.  There's a reason why a lot of really interesting innovation comes from startups rather than larger companies.  Larger companies have masses of customers to keep relatively happy.  They have shareholders to placate.  Larger companies aren't all that comfortable with risk.  In many ways, in 20 years, Apple has shifted from a scrappy, nearly bankrupt company to king of its own hill.  And in many ways in that relatively short period of time it has shifted from a company that could innovate, to a company that has a lot of institutional barriers to innovation:
  1. It is very large - and it appears size is actually a barrier to innovation in many cases
  2. It is increasingly risk adverse - it wants to protect the market share it has
  3. It has a lot of customers to keep happy
  4. It has a platform and a brand to protect
Apple created a new platform - a nicely designed music player that led to a nicely designed phone that led to some nicely designed and crafted PCs and laptops.  But once each of these offerings reached a critical mass, and became mainstream products, it has for the most part stopped innovating, instead reaching for higher and higher margins.  Do we really need a cell phone that costs $1000?  I think in some ways Apple is ripe for Christensen's disruption - the disruption that comes from products or services that offer less.

What Apple has that other companies have less of

Note that while Apple has many of the institutional concerns of many other large companies, it does not suffer one of the prevailing complaints that other large companies use to explain why they don't innovate:  Apple has plenty of cash.  Billions of dollars of cash, with which it should be possible to fund new ideas, hire new researchers and scientists, acquire new startups.  Which makes one wonder - is Apple simply out of ideas?  Or, do they have so much to protect and defend that new innovation requires creating new products in markets or needs far from their core.

Beyond the Core

Apple succeeded because it created a new platform - the "i" series - that attacked core products and offerings of other companies (Nokia, Motorola, etc) and did not impact Apple's core products.  There was no cannibalization of Apple products with the iPod, iPad and iPhone.  Now, however, anything really interesting and new in any of these spaces puts Apple's hegemony at risk.  The question is - can Apple find a way to extend its "i" platform to needs and technologies far from its core - say in medical products as an example - to disrupt a distant market or industry and gain new revenues?  Apple surely does not want to disrupt its own highly profitable suite of products and services, so it has done something else that many companies like it have done before - shift into a defensive posture.

Apple is now defending the core, rather than innovating in adjacent markets.  20 years ago it had no choice - it had to take risks, explore new opportunities and risk a lot to grow.  Now, it has all of the infrastructure and institutional challenges that Nokia and Motorola had, and a far less aggressive management team.

Where will it innovate next?

As I've noted, Apple has all the capital it needs to gain entree into almost any industry or market.  The last few decades have given Apple a lot of panache and success, and its management team may not feel as though it can risk "failing" in a new market or industry, so its options may seem limited.  Plus, once a company gets large, small experiments, even when successful, don't seem all that meaningful.  Back when GE was a 'thing', Immelt asked for ideas that could quickly scale to $100M in revenue. If they couldn't get to that size quickly, the organization felt that they weren't important.  Perhaps Apple has a very high threshold for success in a new venture as well.

If these factors are true, then Apple can only experiment in a few industries, where the consumer experience isn't great, where there is an opportunity to win a significant market share and where their experience (or the experience they can acquire) can be quickly relevant.  There are a few markets or industries where this may be the case:
  • Aging boomers and home health - boomers are already familiar with Apple, they like the interface and have money.  They may want better medical technology in their homes than they can get from traditional medical device companies today.  And they have money.
  • Augmented reality - increasingly we will interact with the world in a very different way than we do today.  Our reality is already augmented by websites, news feeds and other data sources on our PCs, and our reality is augmented and shaped by our tablets and cell phones.  How and where the augmentation happens - on a device, in googles or glasses, in your home or auto - there are customer experience requirements, interface requirements and data requirements that Apple may be good at, and that no one "owns" today.
Why Apple is like a fruitfly

Scientists study fruit flies to learn about genetics because they are easy to study and their lifespans are relatively short, meaning we can see genetic traits passed down or changed over a short period of time.  Is Apple our technology and innovation fruit fly?  Does it shift from scrappy, almost bankrupt PC firm to industry behemoth unable to innovate in only a generation?  If so, can Apple spot and move to new markets and opportunities for new innovation, or does it settle down and slow down, starting toward a slow demise already?

And while we are using Apple as an avatar, doesn't everything about Apple's recent innovation challenges speak volumes about corporate innovation generally?  Large companies have risk adverse cultures, large customer bases to protect and serve, little understanding of markets beyond their core, and shareholders to keep happy.  What many other large companies lack is deep pockets that could fund innovation more easily.  If Apple, without that last disadvantage, can't innovate, then we may find that corporate innovation is distinctly incremental, and that most disruptive innovation will originate from startups, and large corporations will either acquire those innovations or be overwhelmed by them.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:41 AM 0 comments

Thursday, January 31, 2019

How to know when the old models don't work any more

As Malcolm Gladwell and other business writers have found, it is entirely possible to write a compelling article around a rather obvious point, and still hold the reader's attention.  As a case in point I draw your attention to this article - entitled Why Corporate Innovation is so Hard.  This article was clearly written by a communications master, because it has an attractive title that seems to address an intractable problem (and suggest an answer) and is based on a premise that seems inescapable:  too many companies fail to innovate because they trust their existing understanding and the existing perceptions of the way the world and the market work, while missing key signals that a disrupter finds, interprets and implements.

The article quotes a book (The Disruption Dilemma) writing:
Disruption describes what happens when firms fail because they keep making the kinds of choices that made them successful.

This is both extremely insightful - because it is true, and extremely obvious - because it happens all the time.  Senior executives trust their understanding of the market and prefer to fail based on models of the present and recent past, where they were successful, rather than risk anything on models that aren't proven.  This is, also, true of all recorded human history.

But when do the existing models fail?

I've written previously about Tower Records, which was the largest distributor of music on physical formats for decades.  As the physical format shifted from records and 8 track to cassette and then CDs, Tower made the shift, and stayed in the lead.  However, when Napster and others started distributing digital music, and then Apple pioneered the iTunes model, Tower collapsed almost overnight.  Notice that the core business - distributing music to consumers - didn't really change.  What changed was the media and the business model.

What I was hoping the original article would address itself to is:  when should executives know that their existing models may not work any more?  What are some key trip wires, canaries in the coal mine, and so on that signal that the old models are failing, and the time to take a significant risk on a new model is nigh?  Answer that one and you'll have an army of CEOs knocking on your door.

Trip wires and canaries

The old trusted models are old and trusted for a reason.  They work, right up until they don't work any more.  It will take a significant amount of evidence for any established company to adopt a new way of working that isn't aligned to their old trusted models.  What they will need are really clear signals that the old model is failing, and cannot be restored.  For this to happen you need clear signals or trip wires and people who can act decisively when they encounter those dead canaries.

We actually have two case studies playing out right now where we can observe some moderate success and some reasonable failure from two blue chip companies: IBM and GE.  IBM saw the canaries and had a relatively decisive leader who made the shift from hardware to services.  GE read its own press and failed to see dramatic shifts in its business model and are now paying the price.

IBM's canaries - IBM's leadership recognized that hardware was becoming a commodity, which placed a lot of IBM's revenue at risk.  IBM wasn't a big player in software, where there are significant margins, so it had a few choices - double down on hardware (the trusted model) to squeeze out earnings or take a risk on services.  IBM went with services, selling most of its hardware division and making a transition to much more services revenue.  The canaries in their coal mine were 1) rapid declines in margins for hardware 2) the increasing "as a service" model for computing power 3) the cost of entry into software.  This is a very high level analysis - I'm sure there were other canaries.

Sensitivity Analysis

Perhaps the best canaries to watch in your specific business are those that have the greatest sensitivity to change.  IBM was highly dependent on hardware sales, and the sales as well as the margins were falling and not coming back.  Given how sensitive IBM was to those changes, it made sense to shift.

Which areas of your business are most susceptible to change?  What criteria, if it changes suddenly, dramatically and perhaps permanently, would create the most difficulty for your business?  If you understand these, and track them, you'll know when the old model starts to fail, and when it's time for truly disruptive innovation.

Scanning for trends / understanding potential scenarios

What Apple did well with iTunes and digital music is to understand the trends.  Just because Napster was illegal didn't mean what it was trying to do wouldn't work.  The trends pointed to a shift from physical media to digital media.  Whoever understood that shift and the implications would win.

Doing trend spotting and scenario planning is the innovation version of free money.  Having a better understanding of how the future might unfold, and the potential outcomes and scenarios will help you spot the dying canaries while the actual canaries are still relatively healthy.  Why every company in companies with a significant amount of change doesn't have an active trend spotting and scenario planning team is simply beyond my understanding.  It takes very little work to get a lot of very valuable insight.

As one of my colleagues used to say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.  In much the same way many corporations spend time examining factors that are changing slowly and with predictable pace, and neglect to consider the factors that could change suddenly and drastically.  I made this point recently at a speaking engagement.  What factor changed the healthcare market suddenly and drastically?  Not technology, not the availability of doctors, not different service models.  What changed suddenly was a political phenomenon.  The point here is to understand what could change suddenly and have dramatic impact on your business.

The Timing Trap

There is a timing trap, however, much like timing the market.  You will never be able to predict exactly when or if a specific feature or characteristic of the market changes.  Since you cannot know with any degree of certainty when the market will change, and since it is more volatile and subject to VUCA than ever before, it's clear that your team should be experimenting with disruptive innovation all the time.  Otherwise you'll wait until conditions are proven to have changed before you start innovating, which will be too late.

Change is happening, and its happening faster than ever, with more dramatic results.  In the past companies would wither slowly, but today entire industries are shifting.  Companies with the greatest exposure - those in highly competitive and mostly unregulated markets - would seem to have the most risk, but here too is an unexpected twist:  so much power now sits in the executive branch, with regulators and administrators, that what seems highly regulated and protected could easily change very quickly.

For all of these reasons there is a good argument to have a constant disruptive innovation activity underway, fueled by trend spotting and scenario planning, framed by the aspects of your business that are most sensitive to sudden, unexpected change.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 9:26 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

The interplay between digital transformation and innovation

I've found that concepts like digital transformation are like eating honey.  The stuff just kind of sticks to you long after you think the experience is over.  As a person who has spent more than 15 years focused on corporate innovation, I find the rapid emergence of digital transformation interesting, and sometimes a bit troubling, as you may recall from a previous post.

Today, however, I find myself returning to two themes - digital transformation and innovation - because I'm 1) starting to teach a course on these two concepts for SKEMA USA and 2) our Innovate Carolina conference April 5th in Charlotte is also focused on these two concepts.  These are two of the most important initiatives facing management today, and I have to believe one of just a handful of opportunities will emerge:
  • These two initiatives will compete for time, attention and resources, and digital transformation will win
  • These two initiatives will find ways to cooperate, as one improves efficiency and the other focuses on growth
  • These two initiatives become more sequential, as innovation builds on what digital transformation delivers
The honest truth is probably situational - that each one of these is true to some extent in any company.  Let's hope the truth lies more with bullets two and three than with bullet one.


This, frankly, continues to be the outcome I think is most likely, and would be the most unfortunate outcome.  Management time and attention is often limited, so the latest philosophy gets the most attention.  Digital Transformation could be more tangible to executives, because hardware is being implemented and new data sources and new services will be created.  Digital Transformation can be much more tangible and seem less risky than innovation, and Digital Transformation feels like a "must do" while innovation often feels like a nice to have.  I'm going to suggest that at least 50% of companies will end up with a much larger focus on Digital Transformation than on innovation.


Probably the best outcome, as Digital Transformation, for all its promise, is more likely to improve efficiency, cut costs and increase speed in the next few years, and all that investment will take time to validate and demonstrate results.  Most new technologies gain traction first by cutting costs or improving efficiency, and I think Digital Transformation will do the same.  What we need to do is harvest expected savings and benefits from Digital Transformation and invest expected or anticipating savings into innovation that drives disruptive growth.  Using Digital Transformation to focus on efficiency while innovation focuses on horizon 2 and 3 growth makes tremendous sense - but may require companies to follow a bifurcated strategy that is difficult to accomplish.  Probably 15-20% of companies will have the fortitude and bandwidth to attempt this alternative.

 Sequential Implementation

There's always been a tendency to wait for innovation.  Next quarter will be better, or the next challenge will be more appropriate for innovation.  Now, with digital transformation on the horizon, companies may argue that innovation should wait until digital transformation is fully implemented.  I can't say that that's a terrible argument, except that digital transformation will 1) always be a journey and 2) will take 3-5 years to get the basics in place.  Doing these sequentially does make sense, because there will be a lot of leverage from new insights and greater efficiencies, but waiting that long will mean missing a number of market windows and allowing new entrants free access to your markets.

It's a both/and world

Digital Transformation and innovation aren't mutually exclusive, and both promise significant benefits.  Innovation can drive greater efficiencies or more growth and differentiation, and as Digital Transformation grows in capability it will drive even greater efficiencies. That is why digital transformation should focus on efficiency and automation gains, while innovation should focus on horizon 2 and 3 disruptive innovation.  It's not an either/or decision.  The best decision is "both/and", ensuring that each concept has a clear focus and scope.


Over the next few years we'll see far more commentary about digital transformation, because as far as management philosophies go, it's the new kid on the block, and a bright, shiny object as well.  We innovators will have to work to keep enough focus on innovation and its potential for growth to keep innovation top of mind, otherwise we'll fall into the "competition" trap (bullet one) or less worse but still not so great the "sequential" trap (bullet three).  Digital Transformation and innovation aren't enemies but they may end up occupying the same space in executive's minds, so we need to help create clarity about the value propositions and the differences.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:24 AM 0 comments

Friday, January 18, 2019

It's past time to reintroduce risk into corporations

I was on a conference call recently, discussing an upcoming keynote that I'll deliver to a academic-federal government program meant to accelerate new technologies from basic research into the market.  We were talking about the "ecosystem" of contributors that can help move basic research from academia and research labs to market.  One participant talked about the role that large corporations could play, and sometimes do play, in commercializing new technologies.  At this comment one of my colleagues chuckled.  He said to me, after placing our phone on mute, that few corporations are willing to do much with technologies coming out of academic research.  They are simply too early in their development, with too little consideration for use in the real world.

We rejoined the call and encouraged the speaker to include the role that entrepreneurs play in moving ideas from academia to the market, rather than focus so much on corporations.  The coordinator wanted to know why we were encouraging more emphasis on entrepreneurs rather than corporations.  It's simple, I said.  Corporations are not longer willing to take any risks.  And there, my friends, is one of the major reasons that we see so little innovation from established companies, and so much disruption from unexpected sources.  Risk has been eliminated from corporations.  And we need it back.

Certainty and Risk Reduction

Corporations don't like risk or uncertainty.  In fact their bureaucracy, structures and pace are in place to ensure that any new project is carefully reviewed, carefully inspected and carefully scoped to either eliminate risk or mitigate risk to the greatest extent possible.  This means that most new products or services are so carefully managed and monitored that they can only be incremental change at best.  Nothing earth shattering or revolutionary will come from larger corporations given their structures and processes. 

Everything these companies have done over the last 30 years was focused on reducing risk and uncertainty.  Paychecks are based on being predictable, hitting quarterly targets as suggested in whispers to stock analysts months before.  A large and unexpected increase in revenue from a new product might be viewed negatively since it would be a surprise!

Could I get that with a side order of risk?

Risk avoidance leads to complacency and then to blinders.  Recent advances from asset-less companies like AirBnb or Uber demonstrate that easily accessible adjacent opportunities to large corporations were available, out in the open, ready for the taking, but none did.  There was too much risk associated with going into the room rental business for Marriott, Hilton or Sheraton. 

We need to increase the amount of risk we are willing to tolerate within larger corporations, or more will lose market share and the creative edge to others who are willing to take the risks.  When markets were stable and steady, the basis for success is to stay the course and not distract from a good thing.  When markets become more frothy, endure more change and more sudden change, when products and services can be rolled out much more quickly, companies must adapt to these changes by incorporating more risk into more projects.  Otherwise the risk isn't in product development, it will be found in revenue, profits and even viability.

Thank you, next!

Of course talking about incorporating more risk in new projects is like deciding to scale a sheer cliff when your previous experience in mountaineering has been limited to practice runs in the gym.  Compensation schemes, cultural phenomenon and other factors will constantly work to limit the amount of risk that is allowed in any project, so wholesale change must be the order of the day.

That means strategy and planning must incorporate more risk, and communication from the top down must encourage more risk in key innovation projects.  Corporations may need to create new measures and metrics, because existing ROI models simply won't countenance newer, riskier projects based on older ROI models.  Corporations can create new projects that incorporate more risk, but if these changes aren't made, the response when it comes time to fund these activities or staff them will be:  thank you, next!

When your industry is safe and secure, change is moderate and predictable, threats are low, you can operate in a very predictable manner and keep risk in check.  Given the state of the market, political turmoil, international trade tensions and the rapid evolution of new technologies through digital transformation, your level of operating risk and product risk just went up.  Are you able to dial up your level of new product development risk to help create the next generation of products? Or will you outsource risk to a new generation of entrepreneurs, thinking that you'll acquire their companies or products as they reach scale, only to watch them scale so rapidly that they eclipse you?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
posted by Jeffrey Phillips at 6:22 AM 0 comments