How do you make sense of complex markets, where borders have blurred and it is no longer clear which market you are actually in? Where are the hotspots or cool places for brand extensions? Where are the black holes?
Continue to read Making Sense of Uncertainty Markets: Market MappingFor the sake of simplicity, The Innovator’s Dilemma presented the disruptive innovation diagram in only two dimensions. In reality, there are two different types of disruptions, which can best be visualized by adding a third axis to the disruption diagram, as shown in the figure below. The vertical and horizontal axes are as before: the performance of the product on the vertical axis, with time plotted on the horizontal dimension. The third axis represents new customers and new contexts for consumption. The third dimension that extends toward us in the diagram represents new contexts of consumption and competition, which are new value networks. These constitute either new customers who previously lacked the money or skills to buy and use the product, or different situations in which a product can be used—enabled by improvements in simplicity, portability, and product cost.
Continue to read Clayton M. Christensen on Types of DisruptionIt would be hard to find anyone prepared to argue against the view that innovation is important and likely to be more so in the coming years. But that still leaves us with the big question of whether or not we can actually manage what is clearly an enormously complex and uncertain process. There is certainly no easy recipe for success. Indeed, at first glance it might appear that it is impossible to manage something so complex and uncertain. There are problems in developing and refining new basic knowledge, problems in adapting and applying it to new products and processes, problems in convincing others to support and adopt the innovation, problems in gaining acceptance and long-term use, and so on. But despite the uncertain and apparently random nature of the innovation process, it is possible to find an underlying pattern of success. Not every innovation fails, and some firms (and individuals) appear to have learned ways of responding and managing it.
Continue to read Can We Manage Innovation (or Core Abilities in Managing Innovation)How do revolutionaries come up with the insights that separate them from the crowd? The conventional wisdom is that revolutionary ideas come to people after they contemplate a situation, condition, or problem for a long time. A more current and popular notion is that breakthrough insights and ideas appear when you’ re in the heightened, altered state of sitting in a beanbag chair squirting colleagues with water pistols. But these observations are trite and not very helpful because coming up with a revolutionary idea is not simply a matter of thinking a long time (or shooting a water pistol). The key is how you are thinking about a problem for a long time. In fact, there are three key stages of the revolutionary thought process: Purging, Prodding and Precipitating. Prodding is the second step of the revolutionary thought process. It means attacking challenges in ways that force you to consider new solutions and new courses of action
Continue to read The Revolutionary Thought Process: Attacking ChallengesWe observed that consumers apply five of the same thought processes in choosing what brands to buy as investors use to choose what assets they hold. Like stock buyers, consumers evaluate a brand based on the utility they expect to receive today, as well as in the future. Let’s examine in detail the similarities between investor and consumer behaviors you’ll need to begin understanding in order to build energy into your brand. Being marketers, not psychologists, this post will describe some generalizations of these behaviors, in comparison the the behavior of investors: (i) Consumers and Investors Seek Future Benefits; (ii) Consumers and Investors Want to Maximize Current Returns; (iii) Consumers and Investors Accumulate Information and Knowledge Before Investing; (iv) Consumers and Investors Watch for Movement to Simplify Choice and (v) Consumers and Investors Demand Transparency and Accountability.
Continue to read On Thought Process of Today’s Consumers and Implications for Brand StrategyAs shown in the figure, the conventional theory of organizational change rests on transforming the mass. So change efforts are focused on moving the mass, requiring steep resources and long time frames—luxuries few executives can afford. Tipping point leadership, by contrast, takes a reverse course. To change the mass it focuses on transforming the extremes: the people, acts, and activities that exercise a disproportionate influence on performance. By transforming the extremes, tipping point leaders are able to change the core fast and at low cost to execute their new strategy.
Continue to read Overcome Key Organizational Hurdles: Challenging Conventional WisdomGiven the characteristics of business - model innovations, it’s not exactly clear why any self - respecting established company that already has a winning business model would want to discover another one! Sure, for new entrants and smaller companies, this is a no-brainer — the best way for smaller companies to attack big competitors is through guerrilla tactics. But why would any established company want to develop a new business model, especially if its existing one works fine? And why would the established firm want to get involved with a new business model that would most likely lead it to low - margin customers and create all kinds of conflicts with its existing business model?
Continue to read The Characteristics of New Business Models That Make Them Unpalatable to Established FirmsYou can help this site alive:
CLICK ON THE PICTURES TO READ
