 |
     |
|
|
In the title-noted session, being presented solely by Lee Cooper, professor at UCLA's Anderson School. Referring to Stuart Kauffman's work, particularly to the number of phylum that existed at one point, some of which survived and evolved into the many fewer species that exist now. Making a parallel to the development of bicycle from its earliest days. The pictures are showing how these many forms serving the same function coalesce into what becomes quite standardized. Also notes that many things happened around the development (long term) of the bicycle, such as paving of more roads to accomodate bicycle riders.
Interesting fact: the term "bamboozled" comes from the (loss people took on a) penny stock that went up and down on the success and then failure of the "bamboo bicycle."
His thesis is that "radical innovation is like a long leap across a rugged landscape. If the new venture cannot find an ecological niche that fundamentally values the kernel of the innovation, it will die." Points out that "in areas of high uncertainty, traditional marketing research is less applicable. Market finding is what's needed."
Describing types of innovations: continuous (plus-ones), dynamically continuous (plus-10, maybe), and discontinuous (changes the consumption pattern radically). Notes "alpha" changes (consumers' perceptual changes), "beta" changes (perception doesn't change but sonsumers' values do), "gamma" changes (a radical change to the perceptual map, e.g., adding another dimension to the perception). Referring to Geoffrey Moore's framework (refer to "chasm" and "tornado" books) as one he prefers.
Now talking about getting to the "kernel" of the innovation (from a business rather than a technology perspective), which, he says, is confusing to most people. Seems to be right: I'm not following except at the level of "the kernel is the important part of the innovation." D'Oh! Put another way, it's not the many innovative technical capabilities that are "features" of the product, but the fundamental value offering to the market. Then, one has to determine what the minimum augmentation to that kernel is that will compel the market. OK.
Interesting that Lee just said he "went back to the marketing fundamentals of: segmenting, targeting, and positioning" to resolve a particular e-commerce business problem he was not willing to take on. It's only interesting because of the context here. In the last session I was at, Tim Smith essentially painted a picture (which I tend to agree with) that in this technology-enabled world of the 21st-century these linear "push" approaches are no longer operative.
Apparently Lee is not compelling many of the attendees (who are typically advertising types, not business planners) because there is a steady flow out. I'd guess about one third of his audience has disappeared. Personally, I'm enjoying it despite it being geared to the completely uninitiated and a little tedious given my research and reading over the past year. . . . TIME PASSES . . . We're getting really boring now, delving into the standard elements of business planning and market definition (opportunity/market analysis, value drivers, benefits, key differentiators, etc.) for a business case/plan. Pretty traditional stuff. Holding back an opinion on this viz. the non-linearity of the business world today. Also, waiting to ask how his view (sympathetic to G. Moore) jives with Christensen's (and Raynor's) thinking.
In responding to a question from Susan Bratton he mentions the key factors for the success of marketing are that it be "relevant, timely, and anticipated." I like it and I'm going to use it for Fetch.
Posted by Grayson at May 24, 2004 02:13 PM