Why Companies need Innovation? Market Competition Perspective

This blog is part of a series of blogs, which I am planning to write on the topic of innovation. In this first blog, I look at the factors that force companies to innovate and why innovation is so important today.

 

How Market Competition is shaping business landscape?

During the last two decades the political, economic and technological developments have changed the world like never before in human history. Starting with the collapse of USSR and the end of bi-polar world political order, the world politics started converging. This gave momentum to coordinated global economic efforts and the formation of World Trade Organization. The liberalization of economies and reduction in trade barriers, coincided with the emergence and embracing of Internet globally, and helped shape the world that we are in today.

 The globalization of markets, rapid removal of trade barriers helped many large markets to open up for new competition. Many of the markets which had not faced competition due to government controls saw their market shares erode due to new entrants and in many cases large established businesses struggled against new competition. Many large companies when faced with competition at home markets opted to expand in overseas markets where they did not have local market knowledge and often found it harder to compete.

The advances in the Internet and related communication technologies helped the economic integration as well as made the scale of market competition global. No longer businesses could take their geographical location as a strategic advantage because of emergence of online businesses.

As the creation of knowledge and access to it became more accessible the information that was exclusive to incumbents became available to all. This has put pressure on companies to have clear strategies. Because unless companies have a clear vision about how they are going to be distinctly different and unique from their competitors in offering something different to their customers, they are going to get eaten by the competition.

 According to Michael Porter there are three principles of competitive strategy:

1-    Its not just a matter of being better at what you do; it’s a matter of being different at what you do. If everybody is competing on the same set of variables, then the standard gets higher but no company gets ahead. The basis of the competitive strategy is to get ahead of others. The companies that will be true market leaders will be those that don’t just optimize within an industry, but that actually reshape and redefine their industry. The important aspect is to try to shape the nature of competition and compete on your own rules.

2-    The second principle is that good strategy makes the company different and gives it a unique position. Unique position can be achieved through the delivery of a particular mix of value to some customer groups, which are a subset of a market. The fundamental principle here is that you can’t be above average if you want to please the entire market. A company can’t be every thing to all people and do a very good job of it. Strategy is about picking some options from the available choices. Companies need to decide what particular kind of value they want to deliver to which customers.

3-    Potter’s third principle is that it’s just not good enough to be different. You have got to be different in ways that involve trade-offs with other ways of being different. If a company wants to serve a particular target customer group with a particular definition of value, this must be inconsistent with delivering other types of value to other customers. Otherwise it will be easy for competitors to replicate or imitate the value, which you offer. If there are no trade-offs between what your competitors do and what your company does then everyone is competing for the same customers using the same value proposition and it is called a loser’s game.

 In general companies do not like to make choices, which limits their product range, and narrow the range of value they can deliver to their customers. And this unwillingness to make choices is one of the big obstacles to creating a focused winning strategy.

 

Innovate to achieve Business Goals

The key to any innovative company is to have a good strategic vision, which gives it a distinctive position. Innovation means offering things in different ways, creating new combinations of value offered, to further reinforce the strategic intent of the organization. Innovation doesn’t mean small, incremental improvements (these are just part of being a dynamic organization). Innovation is about finding new ways of combining things generally. The essential core of strategy is cross-functional or cross-activity integration that enhances organizational capacity to link and integrate activities across the whole value chain and to achieve complementarities across many activities.

So if a software engineering team can simplify the release process and has the capability to release to specific customers then product development and marketing teams can plan better go to market activities with more focus on customers. The gradual release of software to customers can reduce the pressure from customer call centers and allow the limited company resources to be better utilized. These cross-functional capabilities when deployed to serve target customers create source of competitive advantage internal to the company. It is difficult for the competitors to imitate this from the outside.

Take the example of Amazon.com EC2 cloud services. Due to its enormous scale and requirements for online data and storage needs, Amazon had to invest heavily in building gigantic network and data farms. With the rise of cloud computing Amazon saw an opportunity to monetize its IT investments and made its vast data infrastructure opened to everyone. They definitely did not see this as counter to its competitive position as other organizations were building this huge infrastructure too. However by offering and bundling these services in a new way, not only Amazon was able to generate new source of revenue, it was also able to create efficiencies of scale and shared its IT costs with many more businesses.

In my opinion innovation that does not align with company strategy and does not provide it a distinctive position in the market has little value from a strategic perspective. This may take company in a new direction and might distract the senior management from focusing on core business.

In my next blog I will discuss what can be done to make companies more effective in innovating new products and services that makes their organization more relevant in the marketplace.

Essay – Fiscal Policy Responses to the Global Financial Crisis (Case of Australia and China)

I have posted this essay for the benefits of everyone. Please properly cite this as a reference if you use any of this in your work.

This essay considers the fiscal policy responses of Australian and Chinese governments to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and evaluates the effectiveness of their short and long term implications on the economy of these two countries. It considers causes and characteristics of the crisis, which are a significant determinant of the chosen policy responses and discusses future issues regarding policy decisions. 

This essay is available in my profile section.

 

Customer Orientation and Software Development

Software developers are very passionate people and always try to write code which is better in quality, performance, structure and on any measurable metrics. All the software engineering literature is full of aspects and scenarios to help make write software with is better to use, better to maintain and meets customer requirements.

But still many organisations still struggle with the economics of software development. It is still expensive to develop and maintain software over its life cycle. Many of the companies have found outsourcing a way to reduce the cost of software development by outsourcing different stages of software lifecycle, sometimes outsourcing to third parties and sometimes offshore outsourcing.

But still businesses still complain about IT as not understanding the business and delivering value by partnering with business on delivering on ROI. One of the main reason in my opinion is the focus of key requirements professional on taking the requirements and converting into software specifications. In my opinion they should also take into account the life cycle aspect of the software beyond development and into maintenance and consider the more applicable usages of the system. To give an example consider Toyota and Honda. Both companies are leaders in auto industry. Honda has the best engines in their cars but still Toyota besides having good reliable engines also has the lowest maintenance costs. Toyota engineers over the years has focused not only on the end customers but also on the mechanics (as their customer) and have tried to develop engines which are easier and quick to service and maintain thus saving a lot of time for mechanics. This saving of time translates in more productivity and therefore less expenses for the end user.

Taking the same approach if the software professional can focus on the end users and try to understand the outcomes or usage in the long term, they will find uses beyond the normal understanding of customer use. One example is the usage of software by the production support engineers. In case of an issue if the front line support engineer is able to quickly diagnose (readable logs) and fix the issues (easy to read and documented configurable software) then the more productive he will be and more economical the product will be.

Generally there are many other users for a software application other than intended paying customers. A good product development team will identify and understand these users and will try to address their usage scenarios too.

Converging Social Networks

If you have been using Internet for some time it is likely that you would have used some kind of social networking website or application such as Facebook, Windows Live (formerly msn spaces), Yahoo 360, eCademy, Linkedin, twitter, Yammer, etc. If not from this list then may be in old days you would have used multiple chat clients such as yahoo, msn, skype, IRC, GTalk etc.

I admit that my introduction to Internet was not that exciting and started only by searching for some documents for University assignments or projects in 1997. The most popular site at that time which I remember was Yahoo.com and all of my searches went through that search engine. As time passed I learned about chat clients through friends as everyone was on yahoo or msn or AOL or IRC. So I made accounts of all of these and added my friends to my lists. However it quickly bacame clear to me that it was not feasible to keep myself online on all of those. The usage of those clients varied as I tended to use the one which most of my friends used. Realising this the companies behind these services started providing capability or APIs which allowed developers to write their own clients and connect to the servers. Therefore we saw the emergence of multi-clients such as pidgeon, meebo etc.

The social networking sites are now going through the same phase in their product life cycle. People have memberships of many social networking sites due to various reasons such as regional sites, interests, demographics, nationalities, ethnicities etc. We are also seeing continuous integration by the popular social platform developers e.g. Facebook, linkedin etc. Facebook is allowing other applications to connect to its platform while the same is happening with other platforms too.

Idea is simple, these platforms operate like a society. The more diverse and culturally rich your audience/users are the more likely you will attract more users. Facebook understands that and so does many other platform developers. By usage, Facebook with more than 600 million users is the largest society in the world. It knows that people do move around and potentially take many of their friends and families with them. I liken this with the real world migrations which people make between countries. The way many of the Western countries have developed and have become more multi-cultural is a phenomenon that will be repeated here on the social platforms.

Social platforms which will allow open integration and innovation and will change themselves with the society will stay relevant to their users.

Some thoughts about making innovation work in your organization

Last week there was an IT innovation day at my workplace where final 4 of the many innovative ideas were displayed by their respective developers. All of these ideas or innovations were technical and capability enhancing in nature. One of the idea was about improving the operational efficiency of the search technology by using a different search indexing tool. The other three ideas were related to introducing new ideas which could provide improved features for consumers and customers of my company’s products.

At the end the first idea was awarded as the best idea by most votes although two of the other ideas came very close. In my opinion the reason the first idea won the innovation challenge was because of its immediate impact on increasing the operational efficiency by reducing the time required to update the databases and by reducing the complexity of the process which resulted in major cost savings of time and resources. While the other three ideas were also very good but the reality was that IT alone could not make them a reality. However it does demonstrate the technical capabilities of the organization.

After this event I was talking to my colleague Steve Halloway who suggested that to make this innovation process really tick, marketing will have to be involved with the technical teams (cross functional teams) so that business can sponsor the good ideas and take them to market.  I think Steve is right in his thinking and in order to make innovation work there has to be focused cross functional teams with the right balance of skills to be able to market a new idea. New product development is not an easy job however as research shows that still about more than 70% of new products fail in the market. Therefore these cross functional teams need the right balance of skills in technical knowledge, process,  and market knowledge (which includes delivery channels, consumer and customer knowledge, competition etc) and this is not an easy task.

This is why still many departments focus on innovation in their own respective domains which results in operational efficiency which ultimately improves the EBIT or profit margins of the organization but does not really enable the company to increase the pie of the economic benefits (or in simple words diversify and increase the revenue).

I think when companies focus on implementing an innovation culture, they need to articulate clearly their objectives from the innovation process. It should be clear that their innovation process is targeting at increasing the operational efficiency or new product development or both. In my opinion you need different thinking and processes for these two types of innovations.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.