Shaping Strategy in a World of Constant Disruption: How to Manage Your Business Ecosystem

In this month’s Harvard Business Review, authors John Hagel III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison provide a road map for the daunting task of shaping strategy as technology-driven infrastructures constantly change.
The article is called: “Shaping Strategy in a World of Constant Disruption” and you can download it here (thanks Deloitte Consulting!) >>
In my view this is a very timely piece of thinking from my heroes JH3 and JSB (and Lang Davison). I’ll dig into it later this month on ecosystemwatch.com
Wait, there’s more. Check out the podcast >>

What Would Peter Drucker Do?

Looks like Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ is thinking along the same lines we are (for a few seconds at least).
They’ve gone an dug up an old article Peter Drucker wrote for them: Planning for Uncertainty.
Here are some of the key questions:
– …traditional planning asks, “What is most likely to happen?” Planning for uncertainty asks, instead, “What has already happened that will create the future?”
– “What do these accomplished facts mean for our business? What opportunities do they create? What threats? What changes do they demand — in the way the business is organized and run, in our goals, in our products, in our services, in our policies? And what changes do they make possible and likely to be advantageous?”
– “What changes in industry and market structure, in basic values (e.g., the emphasis on the environment), and in science and technology have already occurred but have yet to have full impact?”
– “What are the trends in economic and societal structure? And how do they affect our business?”
– “What is this company good at? What does it do well? What strengths, in other words, give it a competitive edge? Applied to what?”
He ends with a serious warning for the bean-counters:
There is, however, one condition: that the business create the resources of knowledge and of people to respond when opportunity knocks. This means developing a separate futures budget.
The 10% or 12% of annual expenditures needed to create and maintain the resources for the future — in research and technology, in market standing and service, in people and their development — must be put into a constant budget maintained in good years and bad. These are investments, even though accountants and tax collectors consider them operating expenses. They enable a business to make its future — and that, in the last analysis, is what planning for uncertainty means.

And don’t forget his advice for retail strategy >>

What Went Wrong

I’m still trying to understand what this economic meltdown is all about.
Here are a few good links:
When fortune frowned The Economist
Yes, It’s A Wreck, But We Can Fix It Newsweek
Financial crisis: World round-up BBC
Good Financial Information Matters More Than Ever Robert Schiller

Financial Leadership, the Missing Ingredient
Rick Wartzman
Our Choice Nouriel Roubini
We Have the Tools to Manage the Crisis Paul Volcker
Good Policies Can Save the Economy Lee Ohanian
Fundamentalists versus Realists Paul Romer
The Stunning Collapse of Iceland Business Week
and here’s a “fun” look at another issue:
This stock collapse is petty when compared to the nature crunch Guardian Unlimited
Finally, here’s some humor: 5 financial crisis jokes from Marketplace >>
* 5. I went to buy a toaster, and it came with a bank.
* 4. Money talks. Trouble is, mine only knows one word: Goodbye.
* 3. How do you define optimism? A banker who irons five shirts on Sunday.
* 2. What’s the capital of Iceland? Answer: $3.50.
And the No. 1 financial crisis joke of the week is …
Q: What is the one thing Wall Street and the Olympics have in common?
A: Synchronized diving!

Downturn 2008: Harvard Business Review’s Survival Guide

And now, a survival guide from HBR.
My favorite entries:
Why Entrepreneurs Love a Downturn
How to Market in a Recession
Staying Green in a Tough Economic Climate
Three Steps to Innovating in Struggling Industries
America’s Addiction and the New Economics of Strategy
Beyond the Banking Crisis: A Strategy Crisis
Hard Times Demand Teamwork — Not an MVP
Non sequitur: What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

Piracy and Cannibalism: Do Digital Downloads Reduce Revenue?

economist_digitaldownloads.jpg
From The Economist:
In 2007 digital downloads accounted for 15% of global music sales compared with almost nothing in 2003. But the outlook for the music industry is worrying. Despite the growing market for digital downloads, music sales have declined over the past four years and are set to continue to dwindle, partly as a result of piracy.
BTW, does anyone really believe that Sarah Palin reads The Economist?

Friedman versus Senge: The Race for the Green Business Bestseller

My opinion: Tom Friedman will win the bestseller race easily, but Peter Senge‘s book is more important. The good news? They’re both serious about business and sustainability.
Here’s Senge:

And here’s his book: The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals And Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World
Check out this interview with Senge>>
And this download>>
And here’s Friedman’s book pitch:

His book: Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution–and How It Can Renew America
His website>>
And finally, a little column from Friedman>>
Exxon, your days are numbered.

Leadership Assessment: What John McCain can learn from GE

Does anyone believe that a Fortune 500 company would pick Sarah Palin as their CEO?
When Jack Welch transformed GE, he introduced several new criteria for evaluating executive leadership and performance. His successor, Jeffrey Immelt went through an exhaustive succession planning (er, vetting) process to replace him.
Here’s a look at GE’s leadership assessment matrix. The key attributes are:
– Vision
– Customer / Quality Focus
– Integrity
– Accountability / Commitment
– Communication / Influence
– Shared Ownership / Boundaryless
– Team Builder / Empowerment
– Knowledge / Expertise / Intellect
– Initiative / Speed
– Global Mind-set
Not bad. Does your company look at leadership this way?
Here are the details:
Vision
– Has developed and communicated a clear, simple, customer-focused Vision / direction for the organization.
– Forward-thinking, stretches horizons, challenges imaginations.
– Inspires and energizes others to commit to Vision. Captures minds. Leads by example.
– As appropriate, updates Vision to reflect constant and accelerating change impacting the business.
Customer / Quality Focus
– Listens to customer and assigns the highest priority to customer satisfaction, including internal customers.
– Inspires and demonstrates a passion for excellence in every aspect of work.
– Strives to fulfill commitment to Quality in total product / service offering.
– Lives Customer Service and creates service mind-set throughout organization.
Integrity
– Maintains unequivocal commitment to honesty / truth in every facet of behavior.
– Follows through on commitments; assumes responsibility for own mistakes.
– Practices absolute conformance with company policies embodying GEI&PS commitment to ethical conduct.
– Actions and behaviors are consistent with words. Absolutely trusted by others.
Accountability / Commitment
– Sets and meets aggressive commitments to achieve business objectives.
– Demonstrates courage / self-confidence to stand up for the beliefs, ideas, – Fair and compassionate yet willing to make difficult decisions.
– Demonstrates uncompromising responsibility for preventing harm to the environment
Communication / Influence
– Communicates in open, candid, clear, complete, and consistent manner – invites response / dissent.
– Listens effectively and probes for new ideas.
– Uses facts and rational arguments to influence and persuade.
– Breaks down barriers and develops influential relationships across teams, functions, and layers.
Shared Ownership / Boundaryless
– Self-confidence to share information across traditional boundaries and be open to new ideas.
– Encourages / promotes shared ownership for Team Vision and goals.
– Trusts others; encourages risk taking and boundaryless behavior.
– Champions Work-Out as a vehicle for everyone to be heard. Open to ideas from anywhere.
Team Builder / Empowerment
– Selects talented people; provides coaching and feedback to develop team members to fullest potential.
– Delegates whole task; empowers team to maximize effectiveness. Is personally a Team Player.
– Recognizes and rewards achievement. Creates positive / enjoyable work environment.
– Fully utilizes diversity of team members (cultural, race, gender) to achieve business success.
Knowledge / Expertise / Intellect
– Possesses and readily shares functional / technical knowledge and expertise. Constant interest in learning.
– Demonstrates broad business knowledge / perspective with cross-functional / multicultural awareness.
– Makes good decisions with limited data. Applies intellect to the fullest.
– Quickly sorts relevant from irrelevant information, grasp essentials of complex issues and initiates action.
Initiative / Speed
– Creates real and positive change. Sees change as an Opportunity.
– Anticipates problems and initiates new and better ways of doing things.
– Hates / avoids / eliminates “bureaucracy” and strives for brevity, simplicity, clarity.
– Understands and uses speed as a competitive advantage.
Global Mind-set
– Demonstrates global awareness / sensitivity and is comfortable building diverse / global teams.
– Values and promotes full utilization of global and work force diversity.
– Considers the global consequences of every decision. Proactively seeks global knowledge.
– Treats everyone with dignity, trust, and respect.
So, how do you measure up?
To me this is another dimension on the Ram Charan / Ben Franklin leadership model I blogged about a while back.
And now, sit back and listen carefully:

Is Nick Carr Making us Stupid?

John Hagel writes about Nick Carr’s talent for “stirring debate”:
the Internet is subtly molding our minds to favor brief snippets of information rather than the nuance and complexity that can only be communicated in much longer forms such as books.
Hagel’s point is:
“…snippets of information alone are deeply dangerous. They distract us with never-ending waves of surface events, spreading us ever thinner and obscuring the deeper structures and dynamics that ultimately are shaping these surface events. Those of us who stay only on the surface, swimming in a sea of snippets, will ultimately lose sight of land.
We need books, or whatever the digital long forms of content are that will replace the book, to help us penetrate the surface and explore the deeper structures and dynamics that make sense of the changes around us.”

I wanted tell Carr that it was TV that made us stupid before Google, but that we keep discovering new ways to demonstrate it. Every generation proves its stupidity in new and wondrous ways.
Now if we could just get the Republican presidential candidate to start reading a book or two, we might be onto something.

Putin’s Bet

So why did Putin send the Russian army into Georgia?
Apparently this incursion has been some time in the planning. And despite the political reasons, I still feel there’s an oil game going on.
Putin’s rewrite of reality is something he’s adopted by watching the US administration’s actions in Iraq. If the US can invade a country like Iraq on false pretenses, why can’t we?
And again, there’s an oil connection as well.

The War on Science: Bush takes scientists out of decision-making on species status

This administration is evil. They destroy life on earth every chance they get. All for a few bucks
That’s what you get with the GOP: rubber stamps (er, dodos) for industry.
Scientists can now go suck eggs.
Heckuva job, Bush! Here’s your contribution to world history:
Arctic
Greenland ice sheet will virtually completely disappear, raising sea levels by over 30 feet, submerging coastal cities, entire island nations and vast areas of low-lying countries like Bangladesh
Latin America
The Amazon rainforest will become dry savannah as rising temperatures and falling water levels kill the trees, stoke forest fires and kill off wildlife
North America
California and the grain-producing Midwest will dry out as snows in the Rockies decrease, depriving these areas of summer water
Australia
The Great Barrier Reef will die. Species loss will occur by 2020 as corals fail to adapt to warmer waters. On land, drought will reduce harvests
Europe
Winter sports suffer as less snow falls in the Alps and other mountains; up to three-fifths of wildlife dies out. Drought in Mediterranean area hits tourism
Africa
Harvests could be cut by up to half in some countries by 2020, greatly increasing the threat of famine. Between 75 million and 250 million people are expected to be short of water within the next 30 years
Final note: so what’s a scientists to do these days? They can work on building invisible clothes for Bush and Exxon-Mobil executives.
And now, a word from our sponsors:
Global warming is brought to you by the Bush administration and is generously underwritten by Exxon-Mobil.

China: Police State 2.0?

The opening ceremonies were spectacular. I’ll give them that.
But they were quite Orwellian as well…
Propaganda as theater. Theater as in the world stage.

Naomi Klein explains:
“The goal of all this central planning and spying is not to celebrate the glories of Communism, regardless of what China’s governing party calls itself. It is to create the ultimate consumer cocoon for Visa cards, Adidas sneakers, China Mobile cell phones, McDonald’s happy meals, Tsingtao beer, and UPS delivery — to name just a few of the official Olympic sponsors. But the hottest new market of all is the surveillance itself. Unlike the police states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, China has built a Police State 2.0, an entirely for-profit affair that is the latest frontier for the global Disaster Capitalism Complex.”
What a disaster! Bring on the smog and mirrors.
P.S. – more on MacHistory here>>

Losing the Talent War: Immigration Policy and The Reverse Brain Drain

As a kid in India, the phrase “brain drain” meant someone smart just left India to work in the US.
Now it looks like the tables have turned:
“…more than 1 million highly skilled professionals such as engineers, scientists, doctors, researchers, and their families are in line for a yearly allotment of only around 120,000 permanent-resident visas for employment-based principals and their families in the three main employment visa categories (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3). These individuals entered the country legally to study or to work. They contributed to U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness. Now we’ve set the stage for them to return to countries such as India and China, where the economies are booming and their skills are in great demand. U.S. businesses large and small stand to lose critical talent, and workers who have gained valuable experience and knowledge of American industry may become potential competitors.”
Ouch.
Skilled immigrants create jobs:
“…more than half of the engineering and technology companies started in Silicon Valley and a quarter of those started nationwide from 1995 to 2006 had immigrant founders. These companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in revenue in 2006.”
We need a new policy on skilled immigration, Obama.
More info: an editorial by Alan Webber on the same topic>>

Nurturing Your Business Ecosystem: Lessons Learned from SAP

JH3 and JSB have written an insightful piece for BusinessWeek titled: How SAP Seeds Innovation: SAP’s collaborative Web sites and discussion forums give its customers ways to learn from SAP business partners as well as from each other.
So why does SAP succeed where others fail?
According to Hagel:
1) SAP generated its ecosystem, which consists of customers, business partners, experts and independent parties by addressing the needs of the participants

and
2) it focused on the needs of individuals, not just companies.
There you have it: people first.
Read the entire article >>

Exxon & Peabody Coal: Crimes Against the Earth

Sit tight and listen keenly >>
This is not a joke… if you have children (or a conscience) please read this:
Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near on Global Warming
by James Hansen
Tomorrow I will testify to Congress about global warming, 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.
Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.
I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year.
On 23 June, 1988, I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.
My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad open-minded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.
My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to “stop waffling.” I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.
While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.
What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already “in-the-pipeline,” delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a “perfect storm”, a global cataclysm, are assembled.
Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.
More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.
Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years.
The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.
These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.
Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.
Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.
Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home for one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.
Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today’s carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely – time is running out.
Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.
Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.
Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy source.
Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.
A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank account.
Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.
Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible.
Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists’ clients provide “campaign” money.
The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: “One hundred percent dividend or fight!”
The next President must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.
Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.
The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.
We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.
Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.
Check this as well:

Time to stop the greenwashing, and get to work.

Can the U.S. Learn from Indian R&D?

Duke’s Vivek Wadhwa writes in BusinessWeek:
“…India is rapidly becoming a global R&D hub in several industries. Its scientists are doing sophisticated drug discovery for Big Pharma (BusinessWeek.com, 6/10/08). Its engineers are designing key components of jetliners for Boeing (BA) and Airbus; developing next-generation networking equipment for companies like Cisco Systems (CSCO); and building auto bodies, dashboards, and power trains for such vehicle manufacturers as General Motors (GM). Indian companies are also innovating for the Indian marketplace; witness the $2,500 car by Tata Motors (TTM).”
So how are they doing it?
Hint: it’s all about developing your company’s most valuable asset.

Why India Will Beat China: Transparency Wins!

The Conrad Group’s William Nobrega writes in BusinessWeek:
“The advantage comes in the form of an entrenched and vibrant democracy that will ultimately drive India to outperform China socially and economically. Messy, frustrating, and more often than not agonizingly slow, India’s democracy would seem to be chaotic at the surface.”
India will eventually outclass China because of its property rights, rule of law, and IP protection, says Nobrega.
Meanwhile in the US: we’re busy protecting the flag and burning the constitution

How to Measure Innovation

In some companies, you’ll hear senior executives spout this tired mantra: “Innovation is everyone’s job.” When that happens, head for the exit.
Now, the British are going to tell us how to measure innovation. The National Endowment for Science, Technology & the Arts (NESTA), a nonprofit organization that promotes innovation, wants to create a new index, one that will be industry-specific… blah, blah, blah.
I agree with their premise that traditional methods of measuring innovation, such as the amount of money thrown at R&D, don’t tell the entire story.
But their idea of implementing an industry-based “peer review in which company executives both help to define the innovation indicators and rate each other” is a joke.
Let’s see. Let’s ask the CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, Shell ,and BP to rate their industry on innovative approaches to solving the energy problem. Not funny, is it?
Clayton Christensen says the same thing in this article about creating new value networks.
So what should we measure? How about looking at results?
Can we identify disruptive entrants in an existing industry ecosystem? (Shameless plug: yes, we can – with Ecosystem IQ)
Hey, at least the British are trying. Better than our lame Department of Commerce.
BTW, BusinessWeek does have a Global Innovation Index worth looking at, but again, they’re looking at the establishment, the industry giants that are investing in innovation.
What I want to see is the game-changers. Where’s the next successful car company coming from? Is it Tata or Tesla?

Bill Gates and Philanthropy 2.0: shouting for the voiceless

Bill Gates’ greatest achievements lie ahead of him. And this time, he really is going to change the world.
Why? Because he understands that there are some things that just can’t be done by business or the marketplace.
His words:
95 percent — actually, 98 percent — of all medical research is done for rich people. It’s done for baldness, erectile dysfunction, cosmetic surgery. That’s where 98 percent of the researchers are working. …
So the voices of the poor are never heard in this marketplace system. That is, the needs of the poorest, they don’t speak in that prioritization, because they’re not paying for medicines. They can’t.
So today’s prioritization is totally for the richest, for the things that they speak by buying those various medicines for. And so as we take our money, which in total is, compared to the overall market, fairly small, and cause some shift in the favor of malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, to the degree there’s a finite number of scientists in the world, then you could say, OK, there’s a little bit less on baldness.
Because our money is incremental, ideally you’d be growing the pool of scientists, because you have more money, more jobs, more opportunity there. But it is true that the needs of the very richest might get a tiny bit less attention as we cure tuberculosis.

It’s refreshing to hear this from a leader of Gates’ caliber.
Another point of note: Gates doesn’t want incremental innovation and since he knows the current model of medical research isn’t working, he’s ready to change it.
There’s a lot more on this new version of Gates here, here, and here. What I like about it is the fact that Buffet is on board with him, and that between the two of them, they’re going to redefine the meaning of philanthropy.
The Gates Foundation is focused, and rightly so, on health and development.
But there’s just one thing they’ve forgotten: energy.
As Bob Freling says, “Energy is a human right.” The point Freling makes every day is absolutely critical and one Gates needs to understand: “You can’t have X-rays, or crop irrigation, or vaccines, without electricity. And in places like Africa, the only effective way to get that electricity – when you’re off the grid – is solar power.” So the Gates Foundation is going to have to look at energy as well. And the sooner they do, the faster they’ll get there with their other objectives – food security, health care for the poorest of the poor, etc.
I can’t wait to see more billionaires get on the Philanthropy 2.0 bandwagon. What are you waiting for Larry Ellison? And how ’bout getting A.G. Lafley and the P&G open innovation nerds on board as well. Let’s cure malaria instead of whitening teeth. eh?
Go, Bill, Go.

Active Inertia: Why Good Companies Go Bad

The Economist has just begun a series on “big ideas” in management thinking. These may be the buzzwords of the past, but many of them are worth understanding.
Active Inertia. That’s how successful companies (and governments) lose their way. Here’s how Don Sull explains his idea:
My research suggests that companies fall prey to active inertia—responding to even the most disruptive market shifts by accelerating activities that succeeded in the past. When the world changes, organizations trapped in active inertia do more of the same. A little faster perhaps or tweaked at the margin, but basically the same old same old. Managers often equate inertia with inaction, like the tendency of a billiard ball at rest to remain immobile. But executives in failing companies unleash a flurry of initiatives—indeed they typically work more frenetically than their counterparts at competitors which adapt more effectively. Organizations trapped in active inertia resemble a car with its back wheels stuck in a rut. Managers step on the gas. Rather than escape the rut, they only dig themselves in deeper.
What Sull says is that we get trapped in our assumptions in the following areas:
Strategic frames: What we see when we look at the world, including definition of industry, relevant competitors and how to create value.
Processes: How we do things around here entailing both informal and formal routines.
Resources: Tangible and intangible assets that we control which help us compete, such as brand, technology, real estate, expertise, etc.
Relationships: Established links with external stakeholders including investors, technology partners or distributors
Values: Beliefs that inspire, unify and identify us.
So we just dig a deeper hole.
How do we get out of the mess? It starts with a sense of urgency.
By the way, this idea of active inertia applies at the individual level as well. How many of us go through life doing the same thing over and over?

Greenwashing is the New Red, White, and Blue

How do you motivate your employees in this, the age of cynicism?
Instead of handing out Chinese-made flag pins to all their employees (yes, this actually happens) companies can start by supporting a few good causes.
The Economist has a nice write-up on companies taking this leap. A few examples:
IKEA, the world’s largest furniture-maker, joins forces with Rainforest Alliance and WWF to promote forest certification in China by the Forest Stewardship Council
Marriott International teams up with Conservation International and the Brazilian state of Amazonas to protect a big area of Amazon rainforest.
Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer, set up an ambitious programme in 2005 with the long-term aim of becoming a zero-waste, renewably powered enterprise.
OK. Does this mean that business is finally waking up to do the right thing?

Not exactly.

The real danger with the “greening of business” is hypocrisy, i.e. greenwashing:

So if your business is going to go green (and it should), make sure you don’t do it as a PR stunt.
If you do, your company just might end up here >>

Humble Pie for Steve Ballmer and Tom Friedman

Two separate public incidents with similar overtones.
Today Steve Ballmer got pelted by a egg-throwing Hungarian nerd:

A few weeks earlier, on Earth Day no less, Tom Friedman gets a pie in the face:

Is this “The Wisdom of the Crowd”?
What I found interesting was the reactions of the “victims.” Ballmer cracked a joke and went on. Friedman took it a bit harder – walking off the stage in a huff.
Apparently, this is nothing new for Microsoft execs. Here’s a bonus clip from 2006:

Still, I don’t think this is funny. Especially in this day and age. What ever happened to old fashioned heckling?

Bill Gates’ 2007 Harvard Commencement Address

Inevitably, we want to compare this to Jobs’ speech at Stanford.
I’m going to resist that temptation because I feel that Bill Gates has finally found a vision worthy of his (and Buffet’s) billions. And the irony is he had to look outside Microsoft to get it. Well done, Melinda Gates!
‘For what purpose?” he asks. Shouldn’t our best minds be more dedicated to solving our worst problems? Poverty, Clean Water, Sexism… Gates nails it (except for global warming; I suppose he’s left that to Al Gore).
My take: Harvard is failing us, as are our other institutions of higher learning, because they are not helping students develop an “informed conscience” as Gates calls it. Heck, they’re not even helping students develop an “un-informed conscience”!
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Why did Tata buy Range Rover and Jaguar?


Interesting analyses. We are going to see many more such mergers.
India and China are buying up brands.
We are going to see many more such mergers. These are “learning-acquisitions.”
Let’s see what Tata can teach Jaguar, and vice-versa. Value-engineering? Haven’t heard that terms since the 1980s…