Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, February 26, 2015.
Too often in business we tend to revere success and demonize failure. We build up firms as ‘Titans of Industry’ while the ‘formerly successful’ are relegated to the provenance of jokes, and examples of what-not-to-do. Yet we neglect to mention that once upon a time, these Titans of today were nothing but upstarts in the realm of prior Titans. Seldom is the question asked as to why the mighty have fallen…
Too often in business we tend to revere success and demonize failure. We build up firms as ‘Titans of Industry’ while the ‘formerly successful’ are relegated to the provenance of jokes, and examples of what-not-to-do. Yet we neglect to mention that once upon a time, these Titans of today were nothing but upstarts in the realm of prior Titans. Seldom is the question asked as to why the mighty have fallen…
Namibia has since independence seen the rise of quite a few
new firms. Up-and-coming companies that rival old incumbents, with successes
spreading out into Africa. We have seen our share of new products, aimed at
serving the lower end of the market, while the Old Guard companies move nary an
inch.
It is not comfortable to study failure – indeed, common
sense suggests that you should rather study what drives success, if you wish to
replicate it. But the dark spectre no one wants to acknowledge, is that all
failing businesses, just like many others, are presumably staffed with clever,
capable people – they were, after all, the incumbents new competitors measured
themselves against.
In 1997, Clayton M Christenson published his book The Innovator’s Dilemma. The Economist
called it one of the six most important books about business ever written. It
examines how the good and proper management that leads companies to success,
are paradoxically also why they lose their positions of leadership. The
quintessential innovator’s dilemma.
The key to understanding the innovator’s dilemma lies in
disruptive innovations. To quote Christensen:
"Generally,
disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of
off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often
simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in
established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there.
They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets
remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream."
Disruptive innovations often unseat successful, and
well-managed companies even when they have a great customer focus, and invest
heavily in research and development. Smaller, underserved markets are quite
often neglected by these firms, due to small margins and an inability to
provide adequate growth to a large firm. Hence, listening to your ‘high-end,
high-margin’ customer, can be strategically counterproductive.
This also overlaps with the incumbent misidentifying its
market, focusing on the product it provides, and not the customer need it
serves. Thus, when a disruptive innovator serves the low end of the market, to
a customer who was previously not served, and who is willing to pay for a
‘good-enough’ product, but not a premium for enhancements, they are dismissed
quite easily.
But in the smaller emerging market, the cost of failure is
not as high as for the incumbent. With iteration on product improvements,
improvements to the disruptor’s product are faster and more often, and soon the
disruptor will have moved to a higher, more profitable segment. Since this
segment is not as profitable for the incumbent, not much effort will be
invested in maintaining market share, and it will move up-market.
Thus an incumbent is pushed upwards and upwards, serving
smaller and smaller markets, until the disruptive product meets the needs of
the incumbents’ most profitable market segment, and drives them out. Witness
the decline of film cameras as digital cameras went from ‘not very good, but
cheap’ to ‘good enough for casual use, but keep film for quality’ to the
situation today, where a film camera is a novelty.
Africa, as a whole, has been quite underserved by traditional
‘First-world’ type companies. Namibia, with its smaller market but quite
developed economy and abundance of underserved clients, seems like fertile
ground for a disruptive innovator. For incumbents, it would be wise to remember
that it is better to make yourself obsolete, before someone else does.
There is a reason Christensen’s The Innovator’s Dilemma is regarded as a must read for any
entrepreneur. He covers this subject much more deeply in his book than I could
here. But if I were a market leader in
Namibia, or Africa, I’d be very worried.
No comments:
Post a Comment