As Mark Johnson points out in this article, technical excellence is no guarantee of success.  In addition, you’ll have to know where the industry is headed (i.e. you’ll need to find the white space your company can play in) and also assess whether your business model is structured such that it can take advantage.  If it is not, the question that must be considered is whether the long-term rewards out-weigh the risk of changing your model.  Short-term survival and long-term success must be dealt with simultaneously.

Is Your Company Brave Enough for Business Model Innovation?

A recent Economic Times story detailed IBM’s new “spoken Web” technology, which will allow users to browse the Internet and access information by speaking in their local language without having to type or otherwise use the computer keyboard. An IBM India lab is currently developing the technology and performing real-world tests with rural dairy farmers in India. The idea is that if IBM can remove barriers to accessing its enterprise resource planning technology, Big Blue may be able to unlock a large market selling ERP software to companies that source dairy and other foodstuffs from rural Indian farmers.

This sounds like a technology problem. After all, using technology to create the opportunity to sell to nonconsumers — that is, people who have been totally shut out of a market — is a classic way to build substantial new growth. But in reality, this is a business challenge.

To crack this nut, the technology needs to be delivered to market with the appropriate business model — and there’s no guarantee that the right business model is the one IBM is currently using. The business problem confronting IBM, then, is whether it needs a different model to realize this opportunity. If so, IBM must figure out a way to seize what I call its “white space beyond” — that is, its opportunity to open up an entirely new market with an entirely new business model.

IBM has done this before many times, having successfully moved, for example, from the leasing model it used to sell its fabulously costly mainframes in the 1960s to a purchase model for its lower-end mainframes and minicomputers in the 1970s, and — far more radically — to a retail model for its personal computers in the 1980s.

IBM took a lot of flack for being something of a technology laggard in the PC market, preferring to be a fast follower; it didn’t get nearly enough credit for being on the cutting edge of business model innovation.

Here was a company that owned more than half the computer market setting up a renegade operation in Florida full of young employees in polo shirts (far from its headquarters in cold, formal, famously white-collar Armonk, New York), building what Ken Olsen, CEO of then-number-two computer maker Digital Equipment Corporation, thought of as little — and unprofitable — toy computers.

But IBM understood that this new technology could be profitable if the company developed an innovative business model to go along with it — one that offset the radically smaller profit margins with much greater volume, generated through a lower cost, retail sales channel. For both DEC and IBM, the PC represented a tremendous growth opportunity, but only IBM understood that the real challenge was business model innovation, not technological innovation. And where is DEC now?

As we come out of the Great Recession facing the possibility of permanently lower demand in the credit-deflated West and look for growth to the millions of nonconsumers in India, China, and the rest of the developing world, I would argue that every multinational finds itself in the same position as IBM was in 1980. That is, every company needs to ask itself: Can I reap those opportunities with my current business model?

I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that for most western multinationals, the answer will be no. Developing economies will not support the margins that most of their current business models require. These opportunities will be squarely in their white space beyond.

The question is, Will they be just “beyond” these companies’ markets — or will they also be beyond their imaginations?

Business model innovation takes a certain fiscal courage — courage to conceive of entirely new ways to turn a profit that may involve different margins or different sales channels or different overhead structures. As DEC’s fate shows, these challenges are far harder to meet than purely technological innovation ever was.

I’ll even go a little further out on that limb and suggest that there are a lot more DECs out there than IBMs. The question I won’t venture to answer here is this: Which is your company?
Mark W. Johnson is chairman of Innosight, a strategic innovation consulting and investing company with offices in Massachusetts, Singapore, and India, which he cofounded with Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen. Mark’s forthcoming book is Seizing the White Space: Growth and Renewal Through Business Model Innovation.

Ginger Zumaeta is president of ZUMGI, a strategic management and marketing company based in Los Angeles.

Scott Anthony

What Innovators Can Learn from Bill Belichick
Scott Anthony

Even non-football fans probably heard about Bill Belichick’s “blunder” of a call on Sunday night. Believe it or not, the call — and the firestorm that followed — has important lessons for innovation managers.

A quick recap. The New England Patriots led the Indianapolis Colts by six points with two minutes to go. It was fourth down, the ball was on the New England 28 yard line, and the Patriots needed just two yards for a first down that would almost certainly have sealed a victory. Conventional wisdom called for a punt, but Coach Belichick decided to go for it. After the Patriots fell just short of the first down, the Colts marched into the end zone and won the game.

* * *

What does this have to do with innovation?

First, the “Belichick incident” highlights the challenges facing a leader who makes the hard, right choices. If Belichick had punted and the Patriots lost, no one would have complained. Following a seemingly non-conventional approach opened Belichick up to criticism. Successful innovation requires similar bravery. It isn’t easy to go after non-existent markets or follow non-obvious approaches when analysts and investors are grilling you over minute-by-minute results. After all, naysayers tend not to criticize risks you don’t take.

The other important implication relates to rewards. People moaned about Belichick’s decision because the result was negative. Just like companies reward people who hit their numbers and penalize those who don’t. Getting world-class at innovation requires moving beyond rewarding results to rewarding behaviors. Remember, the odds that an initial strategy is right are very low. If a team learns quickly and cheaply that initial assumptions won’t pan out, they should be celebrated, not castigated. In the long run, those behaviors will lead to more successes than failures.

No one said leading innovation was easy. Getting uncommon results, however, sometimes requires following uncommon approaches.

* * *

You can read the complete article by visiting http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org.

Anthony is the Managing Director of Innosight Ventures. He has written three books on innovation: Seeing What’s Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change with Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen (Harvard Business Press, 2004), The Innovator’s Guide to Growth with Mark Johnson, Joe Sinfield, and Elizabeth Altman (Harvard Business Press, 2008), and The Silver Lining: An Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times (Harvard Business Press, June 2009). He has published articles in various, is a regular contributor to Harvard Business Online and serves as the editorial director of Strategy & Innovation.

 Lindberg Revoredo
Consultor de marketing e publicitário
Articulista de HSM Management
lindbergrevoredo@yahoo.com.br

Se conhecessem e compreendessem e praticassem continuamente a prospecção para extrair a escala de valor desejado do consumidr e seu decorrente conceito de “versões” do produto, a Kodak não teria queimado o filme e as ferrovias americanas não teriam perdido o bonde

 Tópicos do artigo:

 Não é o produto que fica obsoleto, mas a “versão” / A versão não é o produto e o produto não é sua versão, ou uma de suas versões / O que a Kodak tinha em mãos (o filme) era apenas uma das várias versões que qualquer produto poderá ter ao longo do tempo / De posse da tecnologia, a 3M procurou encaixar seu produto na escala de valor desejado do consumidor para vários produtos / Pensar que a versão é o produto é o mesmo que fazer o chamado marketing do produto / Ironia das ironias: a Kodak inventou a máquina digital / A única função das empresas é vender o produto, não a tecnologia do produto / Por não conhecer o conceito de versões do produto as ferrovias americanas perderam o bonde / Mirar a escala de valor e pensar continuamente na próxima versão, garante a vitória na competição / Os programadores de computador são obrigados a praticar o conceito de versões do produto / De nada adianta praticar o conceito de versões do produto, sem prospectar a escala de valor desejado do consumidor / A mesma pedrinha com a qual David derrotou o gigante Golias, derrubou a poderosa indústria de relógios suíça / O fascínio paralisante da tecnologia já derrubou muitas empresas / O relógio de quartzo: confirmação do grande equívoco que é o conceito de “inovação” / O conhecimento da escala de valor desejado e seu decorrente conceito de versões do produto, cria as vantagens competitivas vencedoras / Por incrível que pareça, a indústria de chicotes para carruagens pode ter acabado pelo desconhecimento deste conceito / O Problema da Kodak não foi “falta de capacidade de adaptação” nem “incapacidade de se metamorfosear” como dizem as revistas, mas ignorância da ciência do marketing  / O desconhecimento do conceito e a excelência da versão do filme que durou 100 anos, ajudou a criar a ilusão de que ele não era apenas mais uma “versão”, mas o produto / Mas um caso da ignorância do conceito de ”versões” e de como uma tecnologia revolucionária pode fazer uma versão infinitamente melhor do (mesmo) produto mas de uma forma radicalmente diferente/ O primeiro processador de textos foi criado em 1983 e até 1996 a Olivetti ainda não percebia que aquela era uma nova e ultrarevolucionária versão de seu produto / Satisfazer continuamente os itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para seu produto, é o verdadeiro “modelo de negócios” de qualquer empresa / 

Não é o produto que fica obsoleto, mas a “versão” 

Neste tempo de concorrência em ritmo frenético que vemos hoje, as empresas se alternam, cada uma na busca de novas vantagens competitivas visando superar o concorrente, cada uma tentando satisfazer um item mais elevado, mais um item da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para seu(s) produtos e assim causando a obsolescência do produto do concorrente, cada empresa a sua vez, e a cada vez em menor tempo. Eu disse obsolescência do produto do concorrente? Não, a obsolescência não é do produto, mas da “versão” do produto fabricada pelo do concorrente.

Sem entendermos que o produto não é sua versão, que o produto é aquele que está descrito na escala de valor desejado do consumidor para cada produto e não suas versões que a cada vez que são criadas tentam satisfazer um número cada vez maior de itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para cada produto, jamais teremos uma ciência do marketing verdadeira, comprovada em fatos, eficaz.

A versão não é o produto e o produto não é sua versão, ou uma de suas versões

O conhecimento e compreensão deste conceito teria garantido à Kodak a manutenção de sua posição de liderança do mercado de fotografias e a teria livrado deste lamentável retrocesso que quase dizimou a empresa, como contam as revistas especializadas.

Segundo a revista Exame, recentemente a Kodak mandou implodir em sua sede , nos Estados Unidos, nada menos que 100 prédios que agora para nada servem.

Se ela tivesse, em primeiro lugar, conhecimento do verdadeiro nome de seu produto, dado pelo seu comprador, que é o único que conhece o verdadeiro nome de todos os produtos, o consumidor, que é “captura e impressão de imagens com a maior definição possível, com visão do resultado da captura e da maneira mais rápida possível, pelo preço mais baixo possível”, que ao final, é a síntese de todos os itens da escala de valor do consumidor para o produto fotografia.

O que a Kodak tinha em mãos (o filme) era apenas uma das várias versões que qualquer produto poderá ter ao longo do tempo

Se soubesse que o produto não é aquilo que ela tem em mãos para vender e sua tecnologia, mas apenas uma das várias versões que o produto terá ao longo do tempo, tentando satisfazer determinado número de itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor, ficaria sempre antenada, prospectando e mirando diuturnamente a escala do consumidor e procurando satisfazer a cada dia itens de valor mais elevado ainda, e não com o olhar hipnotizado, fixo, para a versão do produto que ela tem em mãos e a tecnologia empregada nele, e permanecesse incansavelmente procurando (antes que o concorrente o fizesse), meios, métodos, maneiras (tecnologias) através das quais pudesse satisfazer de maneira objetiva, a cada dia, um item de valor cada vez mais alto da escala de valor do consumidor para seu produto, visando chegar atender toda a escala ( até o momento não se conseguiu tal feito para nenhum produto), e sempre, de posse do conhecimento da escala, e prospectando o consumidor para conhecer cada vez mais itens, sempre alerta, de prontidão, atenta a um novo item de valor descoberto e a um método, uma nova tecnologia que possa vir surgindo nos arredores ou dentro de sua própria empresa, para materializar a nova versão do produto que satisfaça a estes novos itens de valor desejado descobertos (ou ainda não. 

De posse da tecnologia, a 3M procurou encaixar seu produto na escala de valor desejado do consumidor para vários produtos

É possível, com uma versão de um produto criado por uma nova tecnologia de função ou aplicação ainda desconhecida, definida, encaixá-la em itens descobertos da escala de valor do consumidor de algum ou alguns produtos, como fez 3M com o náilon, por exemplo: procurando, encaixou sua descoberta em itens elevados da escala de valor do consumidor para vários produtos diferentes)

Pensar que a versão é o produto é o mesmo que fazer o chamado marketing do produto

E desviando assim, completamente a atenção da versão (o chamado marketing voltado para o produto) que tinha em mãos e fugindo desta maldição recorrente de pensar que uma das versões do produto que tem em mãos , é o produto completo.

Porém, ironia das ironias, e isso faz este triste case da Kodak ser um exemplo clássico desta falha que apontamos , é que ela própria foi a inventora da máquina fotográfica digital.e por não entender a escala de valor desejado do consumidor e o seu decorrente conceito de versões do produto (cada versão atende a um ou mais itens da escala de valor desejado, não a escala toda, portanto não é o produto completo, e por isso não se pode parar a busca de novas versões, para satisfação de mais itens desejados, antes do concorrente).

Ironia das ironias: a Kodak inventou a máquina digital

Compreendendo a escala e consequentemente as versões do produto que atendem os itens de valor da escala é possível fugir da maldição do fascínio paralizante que exerce a tecnologia empregada na versão, tão eficaz, mas que somente pode atender a uns poucos itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para o produto.

Vamos repetir: A empresa não vende tecnologia do produto ao consumidor e o consumidor não compra a tecnologia embutida na versão do produto. Mas o valor desejado que ela materializa.

Ao comprador não importa nem um pouco a engenhosidade do processo que possibilitou a satisfação de seu valor desejado.
Mas pelo que se vê, o vendedor, o fabricante tem sempre tendência a idolatrar a tecnologia e ficar preso a ela e consequentemente à versão do produto produzido através dela, enquanto o concorrente passa à frente com uma nova versão.

A única função das empresas é vender o produto, não a tecnologia do produto

Esquecendo o óbvio dos óbvios, que a função da tecnologia empregada, alta ou baixa, tem ao final uma relevância secundária no processo de comercialização, a venda de produtos, que é a única função de toda e qualquer empresa, como disse Peter Drucker.

Estas tecnologias que fascinam ( e existem muitas tecnologias realmente fascinantes mas que não servem para comercializar coisa alguma) Que permitem fabricar aquele engenho lindo e complexo, de funcionamento
Na maioria das vezes o fabricante se confunde e não reconhece uma nova versão do produto

impressionante, mas que não serve para nada, que ninguém precisa dele, que a ninguém interessa comprar. Como muitas vezes a maneira de fazer, a tecnologia, é diferente, o fabricante se confunde quando lhe é apresentada uma nova versão do produto que atende a mais itens de valor da escala, mas com uma forma de fazer radicalmente diferente.

A busca de tecnologia é um segundo movimento, após saber, através de prospecção, os itens de valor desejado da escala de valor do consumidor.

Por não conhecer o conceito de versões do produto as ferrovias americanas perderam o bonde

Um dos primeiros exemplos clássicos do desconhecimento da escala de valor do consumidor e consequentemente do nome verdadeiro do produto (que somente o consumidor sabe) que automaticamente nos remete para o conceito de versões do produto, foram as ferrovias americanas no início do século. Se soubessem da existência do conceito da escala de valor do consumidor, e prospectassem para conhecê-la, perceberiam que não vendiam trens, mas transportes, ou que, melhor ainda, que o comprador não comprava trens, mas transportes por quaisquer meios (quaisquer veículos).

Eles sabiam o que vendiam mas não o que o consumidor comprava, e este é o x da questão. O produtor, o fabricante saber o que vende não prospera a empresa, mas saber o que o consumidor compra. Sabedores do conceito, por simples dedução concluiriam que seus trens, aquele meio, aquele veículo usado para transportar pessoas, era apenas uma das “versões” do produto transportes que atendia a tão somente uns poucos itens de baixo valor da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para o produto.

Mirar a escala de valor e pensar continuamente na próxima versão, garante a vitória na competição

E se houvessem mirado continuamente, fixamente a escala de valor para o produto transportes e não a “versão” que tinham em mãos, veriam que naquele exato momento já estavam surgindo de todos os lados, várias novas versões deste produto (transportes) que atendiam a itens de valor bem mais elevados da escala de valor do consumidor, como o automóvel, o avião, etc., e já iriam se prevenindo contra obsolescência natural da versão do produto que possuíam, passando a investir, antes que ela chegasse nestas novas versões pelas mãos da concorrência que atendiam a mais itens da escala de valor, antes que concorrentes antigos ou novos o fizesse.

Os programadores de computador são obrigados a praticar o conceito de versões do produto

Existe um produto que por sua própria natureza, impede que seus produtores se confundam, que não compreendam o conceito de versões do produto, ainda assim incorrendo muitas vezes no erro de criar uma nova “versão” que não satisfaça novos itens da sua escala de valor do consumidor, por desconhecimento de como o consumidor compra, de sua escala de valor desejado para todos os produtos, que são
os programas de computador.

Porque a tecnologia empregada é basicamente a mesma, para que o negócio continue lucrativo eles são obrigados a criar uma nova versão do produto que atenda a itens de valor desejado cada vez mais altos, não somente para ter uma vantagem competitiva perante algum concorrente que surja, mas principalmente para a sobrevivência do próprio negócio.

De nada adianta praticar o conceito de versões do produto, sem prospectar a escala de valor desejado do consumidor

Como programas de computador são produtos que não quebram, não se joga no lixo, não há perigo de roubo, nem substituição de peças que deterioram, como não são como produtos tangíveis, físicos (carros, eletrodomésticos, etc.) que necessitam de uma recompra após um tempo de uso pelo desgaste ou envelhecimento das peças obrigando a uma reposição do produto, à compra de um aparelho novo em substituição ao velho jogado no lixo sem necessariamente ter sido criada uma nova versão, para que as vendas não cessem, e a empresa não abra falência, eles são obrigados a criar continuamente novas versões do programa que atendam a mais itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para este produto, e assim possam vender mais uma vez para o mesmo comprador (Para resolver este crucial problema, muitas empresas de informática não vendem a posse definitiva da versão do programa mediante um único pagamento, mas “alugam” as versões).

O conceito de versões está incrustrado, implícito dentro do seu processo de comercialização deste produto, em seu marketing, sendo portanto impossível ao seu fabricante não conhecer e não empregar o conceito de versões.

A mesma pedrinha com a qual David derrotou o gigante Golias, derrubou a poderosa indústria de relógios suíça

Outro exemplo aconteceu com a indústria suíça de relógios que foi destruída por uma versão deste produto criada com uma tecnologia que chamo de “desinovação”, e este case deixa mais uma vez bem claro o grande equívoco que é o uso da prática do conceito de “inovação” (a criação aleatória de novos produtos de alta tecnologia, como recurso de a empresa conseguir vantagens competitivas frente à concorrência). Um fragmento de um simples seixo rolado destruiu de uma só vez a poderosa indústria suíça de relógios (está parecendo a pedrinha que David usou para derrubar o gigante Golias).

Uma versão do produto relógio, usando uma tecnologia simplificada derrubou outra versão com uma tecnologia muito mais complexa, quando se pensa que o comum é acontecer o contrário. Um fragmento de seixo comum, substituiu com um grau de eficácia infinitamente maior, toda uma tecnologia complexa.

O relógio de quartzo: confirmação do grande equívoco que é o conceito de “inovação”

A nova versão para o produto relógio era tão simples e tão diferente na aparência e anulava totalmente a antiga tecnologia tão sofisticada, que quando foi apresentado aos representantes da indústria suíça de relógios eles disseram: “não tem corda, não tem mecanismo, não tem rubis, então não é relógio”.

A maldição do fascínio da alta tecnologia ajudou a impedir de ver a verdade: que o consumidor não compra tecnologia mas o resultado que ela cria, produz e se esse resultado satisfaz a itens de valor desejado de sua escala de valor para o produto. Ele não valoriza tal ou qual tecnologia. A ele pouco ou nada está importando a tecnologia empregada.

O fascínio paralisante da tecnologia já derrubou muitas empresas

Com um mínimo de lucidez, sem pesquisas do consumidor, perceberiam que o que importava era o grande valor desejado do consumidor para o produto relógio que a versão feita com o quartzo realizava em um grau jamais alcançado pela antiga tecnologia engenhosa: a precisão, a pontualidade na contagem, na marcação do tempo, e que aquela versão estava obsoleta pela nova, com menos tecnologia, mas infinitamente mais eficaz.

O resto da história todo mundo sabe. A indústria japonesa de relógios a quartzo dizimou a indústria suíça de relógios. Prova definitiva de que o comprador somente compra o seu mais alto valor desejado e não tecnologias.

O conhecimento da escala de valor desejado e seu decorrente conceito de versões do produto, cria as vantagens competitivas vencedoras

A filosofia inicial do pós-guerra da indústria japonesa de não fazer nada novo, mas fazer a mesma coisa melhor, ao final é uma percepção básica do conceito de versões do produto, o qual está atrelado e é decorrente, dependente, do conceito da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para todos os produtos e para determinada circunstância . De nada adianta fazer novas versões que não atendam a novos itens desta escala. É quase a mesma coisa que praticar o famigerado conceito das “inovações aleatórias”:criar produtos que a ninguém interessa comprar.

Por incrível que pareça, a indústria de chicotes para carruagens pode ter acabado pelo desconhecimento deste conceito

Por mais hilário que possa parecer, a indústria de chicotes para carruagem também acabou por desconhecimento da existência da escala de valor desejado do consumidor e de seu decorrente conceito de “versões” do produto.  Por mais absurdo que pareça, o chicote para carruagens é uma primeira versão do acelerador do automóvel, como o cavalo é uma versão anterior do motor, queiramos ou não.

Continuar ou não no ramo de “equipamentos para aceleração”, ou começar a fabricar o veículo todo (porque afinal de contas, mesmo fabricando um componente só, o chicote, ele queira ou não, está no ramo de transportes). ou criar um novo negócio, é apenas uma decisão administrativa, de avaliação das chances de poder competir no novo negócio ou não. Uma questão que tem a ver com a escala de valor do vendedor, não com a escala de valor desejado do comprador.

O Problema da Kodak não foi “falta de capacidade de adaptação” nem “incapacidade de se metamorfosear” como dizem as revistas, mas ignorância da ciência do marketing mesmo

Concluindo, não se trata de “falta de capacidade de adaptação” nem de “não conseguir se metamorfosear” nem “falta de capacidade de reconhecimento da obsolescência do produto” como falam as revistas de negócios se referindo à Kodak. Estas três expressões não são princípios da ciência do marketing, não dão um diagnóstico sobre o ocorrido nem sugerem uma solução para o problema.

O que ocorreu foi o desconhecimento da parte da Kodak do conceito de “versões”, nada mais. De não ter a consciência de que ela não possuía o produto, mas apenas uma das versões, que, concordemos,  atendeu por muitíssimos anos a itens elevados do consumidor para o produto fotografia, mas como ninguém conhece o último item da escala de valor de nenhum produto (a versão que materializa o produto completo, a escala completa) , ela não tinha a consciência de que sempre é preciso considerar apenas como versão, a versão mais recente, e portanto considerar que ela estará sempre sujeita à obsolescência.

E as primeiras versões, as versões anteriores ficaram tão distantes no passado(100 anos), o daguerreótipo por exemplo, e o fato de a versão do filme de celulóide ter atendido a inúmeros itens de valor desejado em relação às versões anteriores, o que concorreu mais ainda para a descompreensão completa do conceito de versões, de sua inevitável obsolescência, contribuindo para a completa ilusão de que eles estavam de posse da versão definitiva, da versão final do produto, que atenderia do primeiro ao último item da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para o produto fotografia.

O desconhecimento do conceito e a excelência da versão do filme que durou 100 anos, ajudou a criar a ilusão de que ele não era apenas mais uma “versão”, mas o produto

Para ilustrar, vamos lembrar alguns dos novos itens atendidos pela nova versão(máquina digital) sobre a anterior (o filme de celulóide)? O barateamento total dos custos, o tamanho do equipamento(portabilidade, um altíssimo valor desejado, veja o grande sucesso da Exilim), a qualidade (resolução) da foto (apesar de que o método anterior já era muito bom. O imediatismo da visualização do resultado. Atendido por um outyro equipamento usando a tecnologia antiga, mas com um custo alto; a duplicação da foto em papel a um custo baixíssimo por impressoras caseiras a jato de tinta ou laser. Etc. Tem que ter bola de cristal para antever tudo isso? Não, é preciso conhecer a ciência verdadeira do marketing, comprovada em fatos     e não oriunda de achismos. E de profissionais com conhecimento da ciência verdadeira,sensibilidade e dom. Todos os bons profissionais em qualquer áreas do conhecimento humano tem estas mesmas características.

Mas um caso da ignorância do conceito de ”versões” e de como uma tecnologia revolucionária pode fazer uma versão infinitamente melhor do (mesmo) produto mas de uma forma radicalmente diferente

Outro caso que mostra quão importante é ficar sempre de prontidão prospectando, extraindo e mirando diuturnamente, monitorando  a escala de valor do consumidor e procurando uma maneira, uma tecnologia para criar uma nova versão que atenda a mais itens da escala, ou observando alguma tecnologia que possa vir surgindo nos arredores e que de repente criem uma nova versão atendendo a tantos itens de valor desejado da escala de valor do consumidor, que a versão anterior pareça construída na idade da pedra, é o caso da máquina de escrever Olivetti e o computador com seu processador de textos.

Enquanto, totalmente desatenta pelo desconhecimento do conceito de “versões”, estava fazendo as chamadas “inovações incrementais”, pequenas melhorias (pequenas “inovações” de forma aleatória, não baseadas nas informações precisas da escala de valor) na versão antiga usando praticamente a mesma forma de fazer, a mesma tecnologia, uma nova tecnologia ultrarevolucionária vinha surgindo sorrateiramente e possibilitando criar uma versão (composta da parte física e do software) que de uma só vez atendia a itens inimagináveis de valor desejado que a versão anterior jamais poderia fazer e com uma tecnologia, uma forrna de fazer a mesma coisa de uma maneira deslumbrantemente e espetacularmente diferente , aumentando ao infinito as possibilidades de satisfação de uma quantidade imensa de itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para este produto.

O primeiro processador de textos foi criado em 1983 e até 1996 a Olivetti ainda não percebia que aquela era uma nova e ultrarevolucionária versão de seu produto

Do mesmo jeito que a tecnologia pode ter efeito paralisante diante da simplicidade tecnológica de uma nova versão, como no caso do relógio a quartzo, a alta tecnologia a mais das vezes produz uma versão tão revolucionaria na forma e no desempenho, que o fabricante jamais reconhecerá que aquela é apenas uma nova versão de seu produto, se não conhecer o conceito de “versões”. 

Em 1983 foi criado para a IBM o primeiro programa processador de textos, o Word 1. A Olivetti  continuou fabricando suas máquinas de escrever consideradas de design mais belo do mundo, e pensando que tinha o produto completo nas mãos e não apenas uma versão.

Reportagens contam que em 1996, 13 anos depois do primeiro processador de textos, demonstrando  uma total desatenção pelo advento do processador de textos, fato notório que estava acontecendo diante de seus olhos, ela estava ainda perdida com a obsolescência completa de sua versão do produto, (que comprovando mais uma vez sua ignorância destes princípios da ciência do marketing, ela chamava aquela sua pobre versão de seu “modelo de negócios”.

Satisfazer continuamente os itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor para seu produto, é o verdadeiro “modelo de negócios” de qualquer empresa

O verdadeiro “modelo de negócios” de qualquer empresa é satisfazer  continuamente os itens da escala de valor desejado do consumidor por quaisquer meios, antes que o concorrente o faça, o que presume uma seqüência de versões, uma criando na maioria das vezes a obsolescência completa da outra. Este é um princípio basilar da ciência do marketing),  e por desconhecer o seu nome verdadeiro que é “equipamento para escrita da maneira mais rápida possível, com a máxima limpeza possível (sem sujar as mãos} com o menor e mais prático trabalho de revisão do texto, ( revisar o texto escrito sem rasgar papel e ter de reescrever tudo outra vez),  com a impressão do texto a mais rápida e mais limpa possível e viabilizada por qualquer método tecnológico” e que ela chamava de máquina de escrever.

We started the “Death of the Database” series by talking about how the Automobile killed the Horse.

But as we discussed, the automobile didn’t actually kill the horse – it just made the horse moot. The car was a creation so far superior that the horse was no longer a desirable option for most people. The car was faster, more powerful, more comfortable, and easier to maintain than the horse. It was scalable (some of the larger earlier models rivaled small trams in size, and now of course we have the Hummer) and it was adaptive (the Ford Mustang evolved more in a decade than its namesake in the animal kingdom had evolved over the last 2,000 years). It also didn’t hurt that cars were less… messy than horses.

The birth of the automobile is an example of true transformation. It was not the next logical leap from the horse; it was not Horse 2.0. It was, if you’ll forgive the pun, a whole different animal. Henry Ford’s assembly line then helped put this new ‘animal’ in garages around the world, and ushered in the modern era.

Nowadays people have taken to calling this kind of change “disruptive.” Clayton Christensen, the coiner of the phrase, defines disruptive innovation as change that “makes things simpler and more affordable.” We would add to that definition that it should be something that changes the way we think about the aspect of our life that the innovation affects. Just as the car changed our paradigm about how we move from point a to point b, the successor to the database will change the way we think about knowledge: how we store it, connect it to other knowledge and to people, navigate through it, access it, and use it.

This is the kind of change that the enterprise software industry needs today – and by ‘enterprise software’ we mean those large-scale software packages intended to solve a variety of issues at the enterprise level (but that often create more problems than they solve). F or all the reasons that we discussed in the previous series on the Death of the Database, the enterprise software industry needs some serious disruption.

The IT industry as a whole got an enormous transformation with the Internet. But enterprise software, while it has evolved little-by-little every year, has not experienced true disruptive change for a very long time. Databases were born 50 years ago, and it’s been 40 years since Edgar F. Codd developed the relational model, which remains the standard today. Since then, only incremental improvements have been made to the way that databases, and the large-scale software they support, handle knowledge. This is an industry that is begging for a shake up.

It also begs the question – if the automobile was the Death of the Horse, what kind of disruptive technology will bring about the Death of the Database?

Stay tuned…

I was asked to be a team leader at the LDS education conference in Boston, MA this upcoming weekend. There will be over 600 people at the event at which Apostle M. Russell Ballard, Clayton Christensen and Jet Blue founder David Neeleman will be speaking

As a group leader I was asked to look at the principles that are being presented by the speakers and to think of ways to generate discussion within a group of ten.

I want to post a quick initial thought about each of the principles being presented by Clayton Christensen because I think he has pretty powerful thoughts.

1. We cannot predict — nor should we judge from appearance, language, or lifestyle — who, of all the people we might meet, is prepared to learn of the gospel. Only the Lord knows this.

I have found this principles to be far too true even in the limited time that I’ve been in the church. I could have never anticipated some of the powerful spiritual conversations I’ve had with certain friends I never would have imagined having that kind of connection with. I think that one of the best ways to live according this principle is not be ashamed to mention the role that church plays in our life even to people we think might react negatively. Facebook status updates play a great equalizer in our society in this regard. By being able to convey information to everyone at once we are able to open ourselves to conversations from sources we would not have anticipated.

2. Transforming our relationships with others into deeper friendships as a means of “preparing” them to receive our invitation is not only unnecessary — it often is deceitful. We can invite friends, neighbors, work associates, classmates, store clerks, and fellow travelers to learn. As long as we do so in an open, straightforward way in which they can feel our love for them, they will not be offended.

Indeed, I think it might be harder at times to share the gospel with very close friends out of fear of offending. I’ve had difficulty with this principle in my life, with some friends feeling like I am just getting closer to them in order to have gospel sharing opportunities. Its important to become friends with people because we value what they give to us and how they impact our lives in positive ways.

3. Most people who live in prosperous circumstances have a deeper need to give service than to receive help. We rarely connect with their needs when we suggest that the gospel will help them become better, happier people. But when we ask them to join with us as we serve others in the kingdom of God, it often fulfills an important need in their lives. Just as we feel the Spirit when serving the Lord, they can too — and some of them will realize that something important has been missing in their lives

This principle is one that I think we need to work on at the ward and stake level. We need more service opportunities that are not internal such as home or visiting teaching. I am currently called as an assistant secretary for the Elder’s Quorum trying to find some service opportunities for the Quorum to do as a whole because I think that service is such a bonding experience internally and an opportunity to reach out to others. While people enjoy being invited to social events, there is a deeper appeal to involving others in something that helps others. Of course, I wonder how this applies to college students since MOST of our friends at least are doing some kind of service already and perhaps more service than I am if I discount church related service and callings.

4. People can’t exercise their free agency if we do not give them the opportunity to choose the gospel. We therefore succeed as member missionaries when we invite. Those who we invite succeed when they use their agency to accept the gospel.

 

I’ve been very good at inviting people to come to church activities, not so good at getting them to meet with the missionaries or truly find out more about the church. I am sure there must be a better way to bridge the two. I recognize that for me this requires more asking. I learned this principle in another area in my life. I have been debating for four years now. I used to never have the guts to ask people to debate with me at tournaments and so always got stuck with whomever else had not been asked. This in turn lowered my reputation and made it harder for me in the future. This semester I broke that cycle by becoming much more aggressive in asking people to debate with me and it has led to much improved tournaments.

5. Most people — even those with graduate degrees from the best universities — don’t know how to pray or how to find answers to their questions in the scriptures. If we teach them how to do these things through “homework” assignments, the Holy Ghost and the Book of Mormon will do the “heavy lifting” of conversion.

 

I actually just had an eye opening conversation with a good friend of mine. He is an orthodox Jew that has studied theology and knows an immense amount about God in theory. He approached me with a bit of a crisis of faith moment. We had a lengthy conversation about how to know what is God’s will and what is our own desire imposed on the image of God ( a fascinating topic deserving greater exploration). At the end of the conversation I told him that in my view ultimately it was God that had to tell us these answers through conversation with him. He was a bit shocked by this concept. He told me that he could not ever remember asking God for an answer. He is someone that prays three times a day and often asks God for very specific things, but the notion of turning to God for answers or direction was totally foreign. It was like he had never thought of the possibility.

6. Things get done when we have deadlines. If we commit to God that we will find someone to introduce to the missionaries by a specific date, and if we take the commitment so seriously that we become desperate to find someone, then God knows He can trust us to invite him or her — and He will put someone in our path who will accept our invitation.

This is a principle I can improve on considerably. I know that I’ve found that when we pray for opportunities God gives them to us in abundance. What I have not done as much as I should is pray more specifically to be able to have someone meet the missionaries or to bring someone to the church. My prayers in this regard tend to be overly general and I think this dilutes their effectiveness.

Uma grande organização não tem capacidade para implementar inovações de descontinuidade. Traduzi a expressão “disruptive innovations”, do Clayton M. Christensen por inovações de descontinuidade. São inovações que mudam radicalmente uma indústria, melhorando a oferta de produtos e serviços. As “low-cost”, por exemplo, são uma inovação de descontinuidade relativamente às companhias aéreas tradicionais.
O autor que citei dá um exemplo deste princípio e aponta uma solução. O exemplo são as empresas que fabricavam e vendiam “mainframe computers” (MC) no final dos anos 70.
Quando surgiram os PC’s, nenhum dos fabricantes de MC tinha qualquer utilidade para estas maquinetas e, portanto, não se interessaram por este segmento do negócio. Ora a história é conhecida, dos três principais, a Control Data Corporation, a Digital Equipment Corporation e a IBM, só a IBM sobreviveu. Porquê?
A IBM intuiu a importância dos PC’s e estabeleceu uma unidade de negócios autónoma para os computadores pessoais, na Flórida, com capacidade para competir directamente com todas as outras unidades da IBM. Eventualmente esta unidade teve sucesso e só a IBM sobreviveu à evolução.
Podemos estabelecer, com razoável segurança, que uma organização como o SNS também não tem capacidade de promover e liderar inovações de descontinuidade. Este factor está agravado pela situação de quase monopólio de Estado. Como exemplo, pergunto se uma companhia aérea de bandeira poderia, por iniciativa própria, transformar-se numa “low-cost”? Claro que não.
Torna-se então necessário que o SNS opte pela solução IBM. Na minha opinião o MS deve criar um centro de inovação, autonomizando uma unidade de saúde para este propósito. É necessário melhorar a qualidade e baixar os custos dos serviços de saúde, promovendo soluções de descontinuidade.

Via PC

Much to my daughter’s dismay, I like Green Day.  Maybe they’ve mellowed since the early 90’s.  Maybe I just need overdriven guitars and liberally sprinkled f-bombs to balance my ITunes™ playlists.  There is no doubt however that there was much concern in the family when I proclaimed 21st Century Breakdown album of the decade: “My Dad can’t like my favorite band!” I’ll admit I was slow to come around.  Back in the days before Georgia Tech had a College of Computing, the School of Information and Computer Science had a punk rock band with a marginally offensive name, and it didn’t catch my fancy.  Band members are now highly regarded professors at Georgia State, Vanderbilt and Clemson.  It took me twenty-five years but I’m starting to see the point.

On the other hand, I got the point of Edupunk right away:

[it] is about the utter irresponsibility and lethargy of educational institutions and the means by which they are financially cannibalizing their own mission.[1]

According to Jim Groom, the educational technology specialist at Virginia’s University of Mary Washington who invented the term “Edupunk”, “The whole idea is a reaction to the over-engineered, badly designed and intellectually constraining technology that has been foisted onto the American higher education system as a substitute for deep reflection about what universities should be evolving into.” Just like the early punk rockers invented forms for themselves, Edupunk is a catchy — and cheerily anarchistic –  way of thinking about DIY in educational technology. Like the punk rockers, Edupunkers don’t mind alienating the  establishment.  They are not without adult supervision, though.

There is a growing punk movement among mainstream educators, a reaction to recent trends in American higher education that in their view are taking colleges down a dead-end path. It is a sentiment that I share.  I’ll have more to say about the Edupunk movement in my book on the Fate of American Colleges and Universities in the 21^st Century, but there is an interesting WWC collision at work here, and since I had such a great response to Dancing With the Stars,  I thought it was worth mentioning it.

No less authority than Clayton Christensen (of Innovator’s Dilemma fame) has noticed that higher education has gone all-in for an organizing principle that equates factory-like efficiency with effectiveness.  His 2008 book with Curtis Johnson and Michael Horn[2] is  a complete and damning analysis of the approach to standardized higher education that fires the Edupunk movement.

I was stuck between worlds when I was Dean of the College of Computing at Georgia Tech.  On one hand, I was a prime customer for technology that would genuinely improve operations in an environment where generating a payroll report or even simple analytics to predict enrollments seemed beyond the organization’s capability. On the other hand, I watched in horror the purchase and deployment of  expensive, awkward course management systems (CMS) that are the educational equivalent of the industrial-weight enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems  used to connect customer acquisition and financial processes to supply chain systems in large corporations.  You could almost hear Clay Christensen’s “Tut-tut!” as briefing after briefing made it clear that CMS was there to group and chunk and synchronize when, in the classroom, the real need was for specialization and personalization.

Six-sigma has hit higher education, and trends like CMS and outcome-based assessment combined with layer after layer of accreditation and bureaucratic program review — with their focus on documents, processes and repeatability – are exactly what has  the Edupunks up in arms.  Edupunk has with increasing frequency attracted the attention of VC’s like Union Square Ventures (think Twitter), whose Hacking Education conference brought together long-tail innovators and others who believe that one-size fits all standardized institutions have a real problem.

I’ll let you decide which roles are played by Alien and Predator, but I want to be clear about my vote: factory models have no place in colleges and universities. There are no statistical control charts for higher education, and models borrowed from manufacturing and social science are leading college administrators seriously astray.  The real disruptors are MIT’s Open Courseware, peer-to-peer tutoring of the sort I talked about in last week’s post, games, social networking sites like Atlanta’s OpenStudy.com, and online exchanges. These are the worlds that are colliding, and if they do, the next economic bubble to burst will be American higher education.

[2] Clayton Christensen, Curtis Johnson and Michael Horn, Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, McGraw-hill

Scott Anthony

My Best Innovation Advice? Be Promiscuous
Scott Anthony

Netflix now plans to replicate the contest approach, creating a $500,000 prize for a team that develops the best algorithm to turn demographic and behavioral data into a “taste profile.”

The seemingly low success rate of Netflix’s first contest — less than 0.2% of teams hit Netflix’s goal — carries a hidden lesson. If you are inside a company, and you have a single team working on a tough problem, what are the odds that you can beat the dozens or hundreds of groups working on related problems outside your company?

Many companies will tell me they just don’t have sufficient resources for innovation. My first reaction to this statement is to ask the company to carefully assess how it currently is allocating its results. Further investigation often highlights that a scarily high number of resources are working on “zombie projects” that really have no hopes of succeeding in any meaningful way. Reallocating those resources can dramatically increase a company’s innovation capacity.

The second recommendation is to do what Netflix did and find ways to spread the innovation load. This isn’t just about running contests. It is about involving customers in the innovation process in new ways; finding creative ways to collaborate with erstwhile competitors, and tapping into individual experts wherever they might be.

This isn’t a new idea — Hank Chesbrough, Don Tapscott, and others have written very eloquently about the power of more “open” forms of innovation — but it is even more important when times are tough and internal resources grow increasingly scarce.

Companies shouldn’t go to the extreme of outsourcing innovation. Complete outsourcing builds dependency and leads to internal innovation muscles atrophying. The very process of innovation — even unsuccessful efforts — can teach companies important lessons. And some tasks can really only be done by internal innovators. As always, balance is critical.

I believe in promiscuity when it comes to searching for new ideas. Look in every possible direction. You’ll be surprised by what you find.

* * *

Anthony is the Managing Director of Innosight Ventures, a venture building and investing business with offices in Singapore, India, and the U.S. He has written three books on innovation: Seeing What’s Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change with Clayton Christensen, The Innovator’s Guide to Growth with Mark Johnson, Joe Sinfield, and Elizabeth Altman, and The Silver Lining: An Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times. He has written articles in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, BusinessWeek, Forbes, Sloan Management Review, Advertising Age, Marketing Management, and Chief Executive, is a regular contributor to Harvard Business Online and serves as the editorial director of Strategy & Innovation.

Many of the people in my personal tribe are not what you call “digital natives.” We can’t really help it. We were born before there was anything digital to be native about. We are the people who had to think like application developers to use early word processors. Insert the wrong code and you got 24 pt. ital. bookman rather than 10 pt. roman courier.

So last night, while enjoying some non-digital food, drinks and laughs around a very non-digital table under non-digital stars by a non-digital fire, my tribemates might be forgiven for striking the above pose as I began to evangelize on the virtues of Twitter.

Ah me. How to explain how cool it was on Monday morning to be a digital hanger-on to Mayo Clinic’s Transform, “a collaborative symposium on innovations in health care experience and delivery.” As Clayton Christensen delivered the keynote, tweeters in the room delivered key points from his talk. Tweeters at their desks around the country began a conversation of 140-character posts, many of them containing links to enlightening, related information — all of them representing thinkers and explorers who might be worth following in their own right.  All this by simply monitoring content under Twitter hashtag #txfm09.

If you’ve never tried this, and you’d like to, Mayo’s own social media guru, Lee Aase, explains how to get started at his Social Media University Global. Check out his Twitter curriculum.

But out here, I’m probably preaching to many members of the tweeting choir with much more experience than I. I’ll just have to keep working on the rest.

Ayer estuve en el Infonomía Update, un evento muy recomendable ya que logran sintetizar en 2 horas (cumplidas a rajatabla!) las tendencias más actuales en todo el mundo para emprendedores y gente inquieta.

Me gustaría detenerme en la número 2: El futuro de la educación. Me pareció una intervención brillante y con una propuesta que rompe todos los esquemas. Me gustó tanto, que he decidido crear la categoría que estreno hoy, educación customizada y dedicarle algunas entradas a los temas que vayan saliendo y vaya descubriendo.

Resumo la idea: Clayton Christensen, gran conocedor del concepto innovación disruptiva (este concepto lo explicaré en otro post), parte de la idea de que el fracaso escolar se produce en aquellos niños que no tienen una “motivación interna” para estudiar. Como muy bien explicó Antonella Broglia, la idea de la inteligencia en el sentido tradicional y el CI como medición de la misma se queda muy corta hoy en día. Hay muchos tipos de inteligencias (espacial, musical, verbal, social, numérica) y el sistema tradicional hace énfasis en la numérica y verbal. Muchos niños se quedan fuera.

Ya iré ampliando estos conceptos,  experiencias que se están llevando a cabo,estudios,   pero hoy quiero aprovechar que justamente en la Contra ( Sincronías del destino ?) se explica una experiencia que podríamos denominar de educación al margen del sistema . David Gilmour se dio cuenta de que su hijo de 15 años no seguía bien los estudios convencionales y decidió invitarle a abandonarlos pero poniéndole cuatro condiciones:

- Primera: “No me pagarás alquiler, así que ¡nada de ponerte a trabajar!”.

- “Descansa hasta las cinco de la tarde”.

- “Nada de drogas”.

- Y cuarta: “Jesse, tú y yo veremos juntos tres películas a la semana”.

Y ¿cual fue el resultado?

¿No se sentía raro su hijo?

Él seguía tratando a sus amigos, y cuando ellos fueron a la universidad, se preocupó. “¿Saldré adelante?”, me preguntó. “Sí”, le dije, y le pregunté qué pensaba él.

¿Y?

Me dijo que sí. Había ganado autoestima. Y tengo observado que los que creen que saldrán adelante, ¡salen adelante!

Ahora el hijo de David Gilmour  estudia para ser guionista en una escuela de cine. Recomienda la lectura de la entrevista e incluso del libro en dónde explica la experiencia: Cineclub.

Ya aclaro a partir de ahora, que no estoy diciendo que ese sea el modelo a seguir, pero si que digo, en palabras de la misma Antonella que evolucionamos hacia un modelo en que cada niño será único y en que el profesor tendrá que reciclarse en un tutor que acompaña a cada uno en su proceso individual de aprendizaje. Y en el que surgirán otros modelos de educación distintos a los que conocemos hasta ahora. Educación customizada.

¿Crees que es posible un modelo de educación customizada?Y si no lo crees, ¿es mejor seguir encorsetando a los niños en un modelo que deja a muchos fuera del sistema?

Mertxe Pasamontes

Clayton Christensen left the business world to go back to school for his Ph.D. when he was 40. As he studied businesses, he had  two basic questions:

1. Why do so many companies, once prominent, fade into oblivion?
2. Why do so few innovations succeed?

He says principles of good management actually undermine successful innovation, because companies have difficulty rationalizing diverting resources from their core businesses to pursue simplifying technology. They don’t want to cannibalize their profitable businesses or invest in low-margin, lower-quality that make products simpler and more affordable, to produce products their best customers don’t find useful.

Christensen says head-on competition among businesses with similar business models actually increases prices. It takes a disruptive competitor to drive the costs lower. In his model, we need to take technology from the big hospitals to the outpatient clinics and then to the primary care physician and then to nurse practitioners and physician assistants, just as mainframes were disrupted by minicomputers which were disrupted by PCs which were disrupted by notebook computers which are being disrupted by handheld devices.

Christensen says there are three enablers of disruptive innovation:

1. Simplifying Technology
2. Business model innovation
3. New value network of customers, distribution and suppliers

Scientific progress that commoditizes expertise plays a critical role in disruption. It enables industries to go from intuitive, highly expert solutions to commoditized, rules-based solutions that can be implemented by less-trained individuals.

In healthcare, he says we need to move from “Intuitive Medicine” to “Empirical Medicine” to “Precision Medicine.” Molecular biology will be the technological enabler that will move diseases from the high-cost, intuitive side to the commoditized.

Christensen says the traditional general hospital is not a viable business model because it is an “expensive conflation” of three types of business models:

• Solution shop: diagnoses problems and recommends solutions. This is the intuitive medicine. Almost always fee for service.
• Value-adding process business: Fee for outcome. Manufacturing, Education, food services.
• Facilitated Networks: Telecom, Insurance, EBay, D-Life. These are Fee for Membership or Fee for Use.

Christensen there will always be a need for a few Mayo Clinic-type organizations, but he believes the general hospitals need to be divided into Value-Adding Process Clinics (e.g. Orthopedics, hernia repair, eye, etc.) and Coherent Solution Shops.

It’s extremely difficult to capture the essence of Christensen’s presentation and thinking in a single post, but I highly recommend you check out his book on health care innovation, The Innovator’s Prescription. Here is a related video from one of his previous presentations. I haven’t watched it, but I expect it covers many of the points made this morning.

What stops us from thinking strategically?

During the past ten years, I’ve asked thousands of managers from around the world this question and their strategy challenges can be grouped into three areas:

#1.  Resources—most people simply don’t have enough time to get things done and in many cases, the organization doesn’t support people taking time out to think. We’ve replaced the Gordon Gekko Wall Street motto “greed is good” with “speed is good.” The problem is, we’re so rushed doing things, we’re often doing the wrong things–things that simply don’t make a real difference to the business. Research from the Economist Intelligence Unit shows that on average, 80% of senior management’s time is spent on issues that account for less than 20% of a company’s long-term value. If we don’t regularly schedule blocks of time to think about the business, both individually and in groups, we can’t expect to significantly grow the business.

#2.  Tools—a number of groups I’ve talked to use only one tool to develop strategy. Using only one tool, such as a SWOT Analysis to develop strategy is like playing 18 holes of golf at Pebble Beach with just a putter. Yes, it can be done. But you’ll be much more successful using a full bag of different clubs. The same is true for strategy development. There are more than 40 models we can use to catalyze our strategic thinking. The challenge is picking the ones that make the most sense for our business.

And #3 Skills. 90% of managers have never had any training on strategic thinking. As Clayton Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School has written, “Strategic thinking is not a core managerial competence at most companies.” We tend to invest in areas like presentation skills, customer service, consultative selling, etc. When is the last time your group invested in developing strategy skills?

“Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns” by Clayton Christensen, Michael B. Horn, and Curtis W. Johnson

“Disrupting Class” is a great book on the future of education reform as it relates to technology, but to assume that the scope of this book is limited to the role that education technology will have in the classroom is to miss the point. Christensen wants to articulate a vision of practical education reform which is consonant with the cultural roots and purposes of American education.

The Failure of the Uni-dimensional Model of Education Delivery
The basic problem in American education as Christensen articulates it is that curriculum and pedagogy are monolithic. Drawing on scholars like Howard Garner, Christensen suggests that working with and cultivating multiple intelligences requires more than a monolithic textbook experience can provide. He suggests, and rightly so, that technology in the form of computer software and web content offer an end run around the procrustean bed which currently restricts and confines current educational reform.

Christensen further argues that computers have primarily been applied in ways which only further the current uni-dimensional curriculum. By offering more of a student-centric curriculum, students interest, motivation, and learning will dramatically improve. Christensen delineates, “Student-centric learning opens doors for students to learn in ways that match their intelligence types in places and at the paces they prefer by combining content in customized sequences.” He goes on to point out that, “Student-centric learning is the escape hatch from the temporal, lateral, physical, and hierarchical cells of standardization“

This shift toward student-centric learning offers much for students, teachers, and administrators in terms of learning and even potential cost savings. Christensen substantiates, “Like all disruptions, student-centric technology will make it affordable, convenient, and simple for many more students to learn in ways that are customized for them.” (p. 92)

Future Growth in the Education Technology Market Space
Based on trends Christensen identifies and economic research e-learning in education is set to dramatically increase. He points to research which points out that “In the subsequent six years, the technology’s market share will grow from 5 percent to 50 percent. It will become a massive market.” And based on further business forecasts, “”80 percent of courses taken in 2024 will be online in a student-centric way” (p. 102)

Strategic Business Models in Education Technology
Christensen theorizes that three business models suggest themselves for those looking to create content and the technological architecture for change (and sustainable revenue). The three he suggest based on the work Oystein Fjeldstad and Charles Stabell are “solution shops, value chain, and facilitated user network.” Based on Christensen’s extensive research into disruptive innovation across industries that, “Success with disruptive innovations always originates at the simplest end of the market, typically competing against non-consumption.” So those firms which target an untapped or underutilized market will likely have the greatest effect, primarily because they face no competition and if they face competition its competition that is based on the model of the fading model of innovation/education.

The Creation of Student-Centric User Networks
User networks will help provide a fantastic community based solution for improving education delivery via technology. Christensen points out, “Facilitating student-centric learning through user networks, instead of through the value-chain system of curriculum adoption, satisfies the litmus tests of competing against non-consumption. Teachers, parents, and students, who otherwise could not develop or market there learning tools, will now be able to do these things.” This will allow schools to better deliver on their four core purposes:

1. Maximize human potential.
2. Facilitate a vibrant, participative democracy in which we have an informed electorate…
3. Hone the skills, capabilities, and attitudes that will help our economy…
4. Nurture the understanding that people can see things differently–and that those differences merit respect…
(p. 1)

This is a unique time for the emergence of student centric learning content and social aggregator platforms. Christensen illuminates a viable vision for innovation disruption:

The first will be the platforms that generate the creation of user-generated content. The second will be the emergence of a user network, whose analogues in other industries would include eBay, YouTube and dLife (for patients with diabetes and their families). The tools of the software platform will make it so simple to develop online learning products that students will be able to build products that help them teach other students. Parents will be able to assemble tools to tutor their children. And teachers will be able to create tools to help the different types of learners in their classrooms. These instructional tools will look more like tutorial products than courseware. But rather than being “pushed” into classrooms through a centralized selection process, they will be pulled in into use through self-diagnosis–by teachers, parents and students. User networks, not value-chain businesses, will be the business models of distribution. This will allow parents, teachers and students to offer these teaching tools to other parents, teachers and students.

Teaching and curricular units would be modular (perhaps micro-curriculum or micro-learning is an appropriate model). The metaphors of tutoring as well as the successful models of Intuit’s quickbase as well as Salesforce.com provide a fantastic conceptual building block for the creation of customized learning units.

These new models and constructs for learning will galvanize a new model and skill set for what it means to be a teacher in the 21st century. Christensen points out, “As modularity and customization reach a tipping point…teachers can serve as professional learning coaches and content architects to help individual students progress–and they can be a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage.” (p. 39) Christensen suggest the move toward more automated and diversified content will encourage teachers to take up roles as network sherpas rather than “sage on the stage” model (which is one of the cores of the banking model of education)

Christensen further sees a new role of (e-learning/internet) education technologist emerging in each school to facilitate the teacher’s new role. He forecasts, “This means that each school should have one person–and over time, and organization reporting to that person–whose sole job is to implement online courses.” (p. 227) Hopefully these technologists can help aggregate content and focus teachers efforts as they assemble top-notch customized online courses.

Models for Innovative Disruption in Education
Christensen identifies technologies and models that are currently being used which suggest a fruitful future for education technology in the American classroom. Christian points to virtual high school projects like Massachusetts-based Virtual High School, Georgia Virtual School, Florida’s Virtual School, and Utah’s Electronic High School. These high schools have a track record of successfully providing educational materials via technology and their lessons learned can be integrated with innovative educational models (KIPP, the Met, and High Tech High).

Christensen points to the success of Apex Learning the e-learning company which provides AP content for high school students and was formed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. He believes Apex, along with innovative models likeAgilize’s Brain Honey, Wireless Generation, Edu Fire, Immersive, Curriki which provides open source curriculum (the Global Education and Learning Community created by Sun Microsystems).

Drawing on the vision of these and other innovators a student centric curriculum can help insure that “all students can learn in the ways their individual minds are wired to learn.” (p. 86). That’s certainly a noble goal for educational reformers, teachers, philanthropists, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs for the 21st century. Let’s get started moving in that direction…Our collective imaginations (and the clouds) are our only limits…

Feel free to add your insight on educational reform, education disruptive innovation, education technology, or Disrupting Class in the comments section. Thanks for reading. Feel free to check out my other articles on e-learning.

Other Disrupting Class Resources

E-lluminate’s Steve Hargadon’s review of “Disrupting Class”
Disrupting Class (available for free on Google books)
Couros on Network Sherpas Model & the Future of Teaching with Technology
Virtual Schools and Virtual High School on Google Scholar

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The Arizona Charter School Association has calculated student learning gains in grades 3-8 for every district and charter school in the state and posted the results online. Interestingly the same school came top in both math and reading- Carpe Diem E-Learning in Yuma Arizona. They not only came in first, it was by a pretty wide margin.

So, what’s the secret sauce? They let you know right on the school webpage:

Our academic program is a “hybrid” program consisting of on-site teacher-facilitators (coaches) and computer-assisted instruction (CAI) utilizing a computer-based learning and management system. Our program offers an extensive online library of interactive instructional courseware, providing learners and teachers with access to thousands of hours of self-paced, mastery-based instruction.

Our program considers individual differences in ability, knowledge, interests, goals, contexts and learning styles. Our instructional resources and strategies give our “coaches” the power to effectively tailor their instructional practices, accommodating the individual needs of the learner with the goal of achieving student mastery.

In the Carpe Diem Collegiate High School and Middle School (CDCHS), we believe that all students should have a high quality experience and technology-based education designed to help them be successful today, tomorrow and in the future.  What is “success?” At Carpe Diem, success means the student must demonstrate appropriate character and content proficiency (learning mastery), not just course completion.

Hybrid model mixing classroom instruction and technology delivered content. Teacher really serving as a guide on the side rather than a sage on a stage, only in a context where is finally makes sense. Sound familar?

Clayton Christensen has predicted that as a disruptive technology the day would come, after of years of occupying niches here and there, steadily growing like the mice at the feet of the dinosaurs, when people would realize that online learning represents a superior technology to Jurassic schools.  After reaching this tipping point, Christensen sees a rapid rise in online learning.

Terry Moe and John Chubb also see a bright future for e-learning, albeit one a bit more constrained by politics. Moe and Chubb see a chance to substitute technology for labor, providing the opportunity to provide better education for less money. Needless to say, this leads to opposition from the education unions, but Moe and Chubb see technology subtly but surely eroding the power of the unions.

Two of the most obvious possible advantages of online learning: self-paced schooling and required mastery of content to advance, both of which are featured at Carpe Diem.  I’ll be keeping a close eye on Carpe Diem’s progress, but producing the state’s largest gains in a relatively low-income area certainly has my attention.

This is just a quick mini-post on good reading for those in pursuit of innovation.

I’m a fan of 3M’s lead user process, which I stumbled across while doing research for a paper I wrote during my (still ongoing) MBA studies at the University of Liverpool.  If you’ve got $6.95 to spend, you can read about Hippel & Co’s paper, published by Harvard Business Review.  I modified 3M’s process to suit my needs as I strive to innovate at Zenitum; I call my tailored version of it the “fringe user model”.  I’ll write more on this in a subsequent blog entry.

While some will say I’m taking the easy way out, I must mention the father of modern management, Peter Drucker.  I couldn’t put down his book “Innovation & Entrepreneurship” until I read it from cover to cover, re-reading certain parts.

More recently, I’ve been reading (and re-reading) Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen’s thoughts on innovation.  His much lauded theory on disruptive innovation is detailed in his books “The Innovator’s Dilemma” and “The Innovator’s Solution“.  In “Disrupting Class“, Christensen applies his theory of disruptive innovation to the world of education, an area that I am particularly interested in.  (Though I must admit, I first picked up the book because I thought it would be about the girl who sat in front of my in chemistry class, who would turn around and expose herself when our teacher wasn’t looking.)

Finally, I have a whole genre of books to recommend to you: children’s books.  A couple of years ago, friend of mine gave me a children’s book as a gift.  The loud, satisfactory sound of each page turning to reveal vibrant images made my thoughts turn back to childhood.  This gift made me remember to take the time to look through life through the inquisitive eyes of a child.

In the last week I have encountered a number of thought challenging, disruptive experiences and articles. Here’s a couple of items that illustrate my point:

I have been exploring the changes that electronic medical records are creating. The process is being driven as part of the Administration’s stimulus plan and their efforts to improve the quality and reduce the cost of health care. The current approach has been summed up by on Twitter poster as: “… an endless barrage of information (and discussions and debates regarding various combinations of information),” Meanwhile CVS is expanding into health care services though clinics in their stores and using the personal medical records systems of Google and Microsoft to improve service and communicate with the patient’s doctor. Today there is word that the British national system is so over budget and late that they may adopt a Google or Microsoft solution. Are we seeing some classic Clayton Christensen disruptive technologies for health care? Microsoft and/or Google rather than a government driven program?

Here’s an article from the July 2, 2009 issue of Business Week by Shoshana Zuboff who is regular contributor to Business Week. She points at some different but equally disruptive ideas.

I spent a quarter-century as a professor at the Harvard Business School, including 15 years teaching in the MBA program. I have come to believe that much of what my colleagues and I taught has caused real suffering, suppressed wealth creation, destabilized the world economy, and accelerated the demise of the 20th century capitalism in which the U.S. played the leading role.

We weren’t stupid and we weren’t evil. Nevertheless we managed to produce a generation of managers and business professionals that is deeply mistrusted and despised by a majority of people in our society and around the world. This is a terrible failure. … Margins have shrunk steadily for 40 years; return on sales for the Fortune 500 has been declining since the early 1960s.

Many companies reacted to this decline by finding new ways to cut costs. The Harvard Business School, along with other business schools, taught them how: outsourcing, off-shoring, downsizing, reengineering, and finding new overseas markets for old products.

… a return to real prosperity and long-term growth … will require a rebirth of business based on new rules for a new era.

The old rules that most B-schools have preached were invented a century ago for supplying mass consumers with affordable goods and services. They are poorly suited to the values of today’s new consumers, who want help to live their lives as they choose, with personal control, voice, and a practical sense of connection. Many smart people have spent decades trying—and failing—to adapt the old model to this new pattern of consumer demand.

New Rule No. 1: Race to I-Space
The old rules assumed economic value. That’s why Harvard Business School students have been trained for a century in the “administrative point of view.” The manager’s job was to oversee and control what was inside organization space, or what they were trained to view as “my company.” Everything else was a distraction. The “administrative point of view” reflects a simpler time when business was about selling a product. …. It’s a world of producers vs. consumers, my company vs. your company, us vs. them.

Business is no longer just about the product. Now it’s about solutions for the individual. Economic value is hidden in consumers’ unmet needs and is released by providing people with the means to fulfill those needs. But in order to release new value, you need to get out of organization space and into the subjective space where individuals live. I call it “I-Space.” This means shedding the “us-them” mentality. Now everyone is an insider.

…. Apple headed for I-space with iPod/iTunes and released massive quantities of value by giving people what they wanted on their own terms in their own space. Meanwhile, music industry executives were busy throwing tantrums in organization space and suing their most passionate customers. …

New Rule No. 2: Advocate, Don’t Alienate
The old rules taught you to ask, “What is my product or service, and how can I sell it to you?” With that question, adversarialism was baked into the DNA of the buyer-seller transaction.

The new rules ask, “Who are you? What do you need? How can I help?” This creates a dynamic of advocacy and mutual accountability. The more trust you build, the more value you release, and the more wealth you create.

… President Barack Obama gets it. In his proposed overhaul of financial regulations, brokers will be compelled to put their clients’ interests first. Trained in the administrative point of view, Wall Street executives are already preparing to fight the very changes that would put them on a path to new wealth creation.

New Rule No. 3: Collaborate and Federate to Compete
When you’re in I-Space, you need to collaborate and federate to provide the support individuals need. You can’t do it alone because the needs of individuals don’t conform to existing organizational and industry boundaries. This means learning how to manage what you don’t control or own. These economies of trust are becoming even more important than economies of scale.

… Amazon’s marketplace and eBay’s webs of buyers and sellers are early prototypes of these federated networks. Apple and Facebook are struggling to understand the rules of engagement that should govern relationships with their applications developers. You can see them climbing a new learning curve through trial and error as they figure out how to build and sustain economies of trust.

Are You Ready to Let Go?
After decades of working with adults on the challenges of transition, I know that letting go of the old rules won’t be easy. No one gives up what they know without a fight. …

Letting go is a Catch-22. You don’t want to let go until you have something new to cling to, but you can’t discover the new thing until you let go. In between, you must cross a mystery zone. Eventually you get to the point where you can’t stand the feeling of things not adding up for one more minute. That’s when you take a leap of faith, and the questions start to feel more important than the answers. You’re in a new place. The bad news: There are no maps. The good news? You are the mapmaker.

Sounds like we are living in interesting times. Stay tuned.

Two or more recent on-topic posts from Gartner blogger Andrea di Maio. In the most recent Andrea considers how enthusiasm for Web 2.o might shift away from being profitable to the private sector – Why The IT Industry Could Derail Government 2.0 – which takes a very big picture and has an essence of ‘may happen’. This contrasts somewhat with the excess spin put on the topic by Accenture in ‘Web 2.0 and the Next Generation of Public Service’, which is only compensated by their ‘Public Service Value Governance Framework’, which my set the thing in context.

The post before it (Cool idea from an unlikely vendor)  from Andrea also heralds a warning, a government supplier demonstrating a simple Web 2.0 e-government solution. I’d thought that was the essence of it all, the provision by government of datasets, widgets etc so the citizen could, without much difficulty get what they want, if they wanted to.

I think Clayton M. Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Dilemma has something to say on both the previous – and its largely that those already heavily in the market don’t innovate.

The other July post from Andrea picks up on the issue of another contract from the EC to CapGemini to do yet another round of benchmarking e-government – what a waste of tax-payers money. Has the last seven years work delivered anything of value to require another four of the same? I doubt it!