Archive | September, 2011

Recap of Panel: Learn How to Sustainably Innovate or Be Left Behind

Innovation at the intersection of Strategy, Capabilities, and InsightsI moderated a great panel discussion on Sustainable Innovation yesterday on Focus. It was quite enlightening to hear insights from people who’ve been at larger companies like Facebook, Linkedin, eBay, and Yahoo; but have also been at smaller startups too. I raised the concept of “Compound Innovation” and wrote up some of my thoughts on why I think this is a very powerful model of innovation here.

Some of the topics we discussed:

  • What differentiates successful innovation from the more typical product evolution?
  • How do you best measure true innovation success vs. failure?
  • How can you best optimize your organization and processes to foster successful innovation?
  • After experiencing many different innovation programs and processes, what actually works?
  • What are the myths of innovation that continue to be pitfalls?

Here is the MP3 audio recording of the panel discussion:
Focus Panel on Sustainable Innovation 9-28-11

Speakers

Luke Wroblewski
Founder
LukeW Ideation & Design

Adam Nash
Greylock Partners

Kate Aronowitz
Director of Design
Facebook

Larry Cornett 
Founder & CEO, Innovation Speaker & Consultant
Brilliant Forge

Read full storyComments { 2 }

Why Do Businesses Fail to Successfully Adapt to Change?

Interesting infographic on GigaOM on why businesses are failing to successfully deal with disruption, competition, and change. Many of the reported causal factors will be quite familiar to anyone who has worked in a larger corporation. Although this highlights some of those factors, there isn’t much offered in terms of potential solutions to overcome these issues.

Some of the factors affecting the pace of business change:

  • Volatile economic environment
  • Increased competition
  • Fast-changing regulatory environment
  • Rapid changes in customer preferences
  • Changing technologies

Barriers slowing business response to change:

  • Lack of resources to implement change
  • Lack of coordination across different functions
  • Inaccurate or incomplete data
  • Bureaucratic decision-making process
  • Reluctance among senior executives to change strategy
  • Lack of leadership
  • Lack of autonomy for managers/executives
  • Reluctance to admit that previous strategic decisions were wrong
  • Lack of innovation capability

There are certainly things that can be done by larger corporations to address these issues, but they require strong leadership, real vision, and bold execution.

First, it requires significant changes in how organizations hire, organize teams, encourage exploration, and reward success.

Second, it requires significant changes in business processes and product development processes to foster goal-directed innovation, weave it appropriately into the product process, and streamline decision-making so that products can be delivered more quickly to market.

Finally, it requires a clarity of vision and a focused strategy to engender passion, not only in your customers, but also in your employees. Without their passion and belief in your mission and what you are delivering to your customers, nothing of significance will ever be created.

Progress Software infographic based on research from the Economist Intelligence Unit

Credit: Progress Software’s infographic based on research from the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Learn How to Sustainably Innovate or Be Left Behind – A Free Event on Sep 28th

I will be moderating a panel on Sustainable Innovation on Sep 28th, 1–2 PM PST on Focus.com. It’s free, so check it out and join us!

Summary

We are all witnessing an increasing velocity of product and service innovation within the competitive landscape. Creating a sustainable process for successful innovation is now even more critical for corporate survival. Yet, it seems that only nimble startups and a select few larger companies are able to accomplish this. Why is that? Our panelists have experienced innovation success and failure at some of the largest Fortune 500 companies and some of the smallest tech startups. Join our roundtable to find out more about their lessons learned.

We’ll cover such topics as:

  • What differentiates successful innovation from the more typical product evolution?
  • How do you best measure true innovation success vs. failure?
  • How can you best optimize your organization and processes to foster successful innovation?
  • After experiencing many different innovation programs and processes, what actually works?
  • What are the myths of innovation that continue to be pitfalls?

How to Attend

Experience this event live online by visiting the event page up to 15 minutes before the start.
Not going to be online? Call-in:

US Toll-free:  (866) 951-1151
International: (201) 590-2255
Passcode: 4999006

Save to Calendar

Speakers

Luke Wroblewski
Founder
LukeW Ideation & Design

Adam Nash
Greylock Partners

Kate Aronowitz
Director of Design
Facebook

Larry Cornett 
Founder & CEO, Innovation Speaker & Consultant
Brilliant Forge

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Optimizing Organizational Models to Foster Disruptive Innovation & Product Evolution

I feel a much longer post coming on about the topic of “optimizing organizational models”, but I wanted to share a few quick thoughts on the link between organizational models and innovation. Given the recent events at Yahoo, there has been much discussion about why the company continues to struggle and what can be done about it. The infamous Yahoo matrix organization is one point that is raised often.

From a recent post by Salim Ismail on GigaOM about Yahoo’s matrix:

But it is terrible for accountability or speed. Whenever you launch or change a product, you have to get clearance from legal, PR, branding, privacy etc, which inevitably takes time. The matrix structure also prevents any real risk taking. The legal department, for example, wants the same ToS across all the products. Brickhouse was created to circumvent this issue. Set up outside and away from the mother ship, we hoped to be the tugboat that pulled the big tanker around. It worked for a while, but the Microsoft bid pretty much derailed that effort. The company had to focus all its energies to fend off the bid, which was necessary but incredibly disruptive to morale and productivity.  In addition, the Matrix had woken up and was attacking our unit (the best analogy I’ve found for this is that whenever you do corporate incubation, the immune system of the company will come and attack you — but that’s a whole other post).

The matrix structure works great in older, slower industries, but on the Internet, the two attributes you must have are speed and risk. Very simply, Yahoo’s organizational structure is antithetical to the industry they’re in. Over time, that structure has calcified and today, Yahoo is a 14 year old dinosaur in the industry it helped form.

I agree that the matrix only makes sense for certain support functions that you really should centralize, usually due to policy and oversight (e.g., HR, Legal). But, pushing other functions like Design and Research into a matrix role tends to slow down execution and hinders innovation. Decision-making becomes fuzzy when different team members actually report into different organizations. Accountability and “loyalty” are also unclear when someone works day-to-day within one organization, but has a manager outside of that organization who may have goals that are not fully aligned with the goals of that product team. I know, because I have experienced this personally as organizations decentralized into a matrix role and then re-centralized again, several times over the period of just a few years in a number of corporations where I was employed. The cycles of reorganizations and changes in ownership, decision-making, and accountability all contributed to execution issues.

However, I’m not sure that I would characterize the Brickhouse team at Yahoo as executing successfully until the Matrix “attacked it”. Everyone within Product and Engineering organizations should be responsible and accountable for the innovation and evolution of their respective products. Creating a separate “innovation group” that exists somewhere else in an ivory tower only makes sense if that group is chartered with the creation of an entirely new product. There are historical examples of that having some mixed success. For example, Apple’s original Macintosh team delivered, but the rest of the company felt alienated. If the innovation is supposedly being applied to an existing product line, you can be certain that the core team will feel alienated and exhibit “organ rejection” when you try to inject that innovation back into the core product. Also, this separate innovation group typically does not have the deep knowledge and experience with a product that the dedicated team does, after years and years of design and development. Yes, yes. I know that a team can stagnate and fail to innovate their own product because they are too close to it. But, that can be fixed. There are many ways to remedy this through intelligent hiring, better organizational models, and sustainable changes to product process that help drive repeatable innovation. Thinking that you can create product innovation in a vacuum, without collaboration with the existing team, and have it succeed in the market is a myth.

It simply does not work.

More to come…

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Social Networks and Blogs Dominate Time Spent Online With Tumblr at #3

Tumblr reblog Y U NO GuyI was just reading the Nielsen Social Media Report: Q3 2011 and, while there are some findings that are not that surprising, there are some very interesting tidbits of data. Not surprising to see that social networks, blogs, and microblogs are dominating our time spent online, taking up nearly 1/4 of time spent on the internet in the U.S. But, did you know that Tumblr is #3 for time spent? It ranks behind #1 Facebook and #2 Blogger, but ahead of Twitter and Linkedin. Tumblr has also nearly tripled its unique U.S. audience in the last year. It had about 15 million unique visitors last month and users spend 623 million minutes per month on the site.

Over the years, I have experimented with dozens of platforms for blogging, microblogging, and social networks. I have long been a WordPress user for my own blogs. I have also used Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube, Delicious, Stumbleupon, and Digg as distribution channels and connecting with followers. But, I had not used Tumblr until a few months ago. The experience has been enlightening and helps me understand the site’s popularity and growth. The engagement with my followers on Tumblr has been very different than Facebook and Twitter. The frequency of likes and comments is much greater on Tumblr. Posts are reblogged more often than the same content is retweeted on Twitter or shared on Facebook.

The ease of reblogging content on Tumblr has certainly been a huge part of its popularity and growth, but this is also creating one of Tumblr’s biggest issues: Copyright infringement. As I scroll through my Tumblr stream, it is clear that a large majority of the content is “borrowed” and modified. I can’t imagine that Tumblr won’t need to crack down on this at some point, just as YouTube did (which helps protect them from lawsuits). Some believe that Tumblr will only have serious success with large brands and advertisers once it deals with this issue plus its “porn issue“. Regardless, the increases in time spent and users that Tumblr has been enjoying makes it a player that everyone needs to keep an eye on.

Highlights of Nielsen’s “State of the Media: The Social Media Report”

  • Social networks and blogs continue to dominate Americans’ time online, now accounting for nearly a quarter of total time spent on the Internet
  • At over 53 billion total minutes during May 2011, Americans spend more time on Facebook than they do on any other website
  • Tumblr is an emerging player in social media, nearly tripling its audience from a year ago
  • Nearly 40 percent of social media users access social media content from their mobile phone
  • Internet users over the age of 55 are driving the growth of social networking through the Mobile Internet
  • 70 percent of active online adult social networkers shop online, 12 percent more likely than the average adult Internet user
  • Across a sample of 10 global markets, social networks and blogs are the top online destination in each country, accounting for the majority of time spent online and reaching at least 60 percent of active Internet users
  • From the Nielsen Social Media Report: Q3 2011
Read full storyComments { 2 }

Why Do Startups Fail? An Analysis of 3,200 High-growth Technology Startups

I read a very interesting article on TechCrunch today about why startups fail. They shared data from research that Blackbox conducted for their Startup Genome project, which is trying to uncover what makes Silicon Valley startups succeed vs. fail. You can gain access to the free full report here. I highly recommend that you take the time to read through it. Pretty fascinating data.

My biggest takeaway from all of this? Startups absolutely need great mentors. Surprisingly, hands-on help from their investors did not have a significantly positive effect on their performance. I believe that most startup founders assume that they are going to get the guidance they need to be successful once they have secured the backing of a solid VC firm. This certainly does not appear to be the case. As I look through the key findings from the report, these points of failure seem to quite avoidable if a startup had a strong, smart team of mentors that they could turn to for advice on these issues. In particular, the most common reason for startup failure was “premature scaling” along one or more key dimensions (i.e., Customer, Product, Team, Financials, and Business model). Knowing how and when to scale a startup appropriately along these dimensions is something that an experienced mentor understands (e.g., someone who has learned from his or her own scaling successes and failures).

Key findings from their report

  1. Founders that learn are more successful. Startups that have helpful mentors, track performance metrics effectively, and learn from startup thought leaders raise 7x more money and have 3.5x better user growth.
  2. Startups that pivot once or twice raise 2.5x more money, have 3.6x better user growth, and are 52% less likely to scale prematurely than startups that pivot more than 2 times or not at all. A pivot is when a startup decides to change a major part of its business.
  3. Premature scaling is the most common reason for startups to perform worse. They tend to lose the battle early on by getting ahead of themselves. Startups can prematurely scale their team, their customer acquisition strategies or over build the product.
  4. Many investors invest 2-3x more capital than necessary in startups in the discovery phase. They also over-invest in solo founders and founding teams without technical cofounders despite indicators that show that these teams have a much lower probability of success.
  5. Hands-on help from investors have little or no effect on the company’s operational performance. But the right mentors significantly influence a company’s performance and ability to raise money. However, this does not mean that investors don’t have a significant effect on valuations and M&A.
  6. Solo founders take 3.6x longer to reach scale stage compared to a founding team of 2 and they are 2.3x less likely to pivot.
  7. Business-heavy founding teams are 6.2x more likely to successfully scale with sales-driven startups than with product-centric startups.
  8. Technical-heavy founding teams are 3.3x more likely to successfully scale with product-centric startups without network effects than with product-centric startups with network effects.
  9. Balanced teams with one technical founder and one business founder raise 30% more money, have 2.9x more user growth and are 19% less likely to scale prematurely than technical or business-heavy founding teams.
  10. Founders that don’t work full-time have 4x less user growth and end up raising 24x less money from investors.
  11. Most successful founders are driven by impact rather than experience or money.
  12. 72% of founders find out that their initial intellectual property is not a competitive advantage.
  13. Startups need 2-3 times longer to validate their market than most founders expect. This underestimation creates the pressure to scale prematurely.
  14. Startups that haven’t raised money overestimate their market size by 100x and often misinterpret their market as new.
  15. B2C vs. B2B is not a meaningful segmentation of Internet startups anymore because the Internet has changed the dynamics of customer interaction. We found 4 different major groups of startups that all have very different behavior regarding customer acquisition, time requirements, market risk and team composition.

Startup Genome Report: premature scaling v 1.1 . Copyright 2011, contents under creative commons license

The team at Visual.ly created this infographic to illustrate the highlights of the report.

by visually via

 

Read full storyComments { 1 }