Presentatie Thaesis IAMB conferentie
description
Transcript of Presentatie Thaesis IAMB conferentie
Exploring ‘the innovator’s solution’ to disruptive changes
in the Dutch publishing industry
Hans van Moorsel¹ & Theo Huibers¹ ² (Januari 2012)
¹Thaesis B.V., Utrecht, the Netherlands² University of Twente, Twente, the Netherlands
12th IAMB Conference, Warsaw Poland24 April 2012
Media and technology
Education
Retail
Research
IntroductionHans van Moorsel
Strategy Consultant at
corporate/executive advice
research
International economics and business
Strategic Management
Disruptive innovations 51%
10%7%
32%
⅔⅓
The context
Methodology
The findings
Analysis and discussion
Outline of the presentationPart
1
Part
2
Part
3
Part
4
Part
1Part
2Part
4Part
3
The context
Better understanding of how firms deal with disruptive changeDisruptive changes are potentially transforming many important (global) industries and ushering in a new era where entrepreneurial startups compete head-to-head with established incumbents.
By building on extensive studies on disruptive innovatione.g. Christensen, 1993; Christen & Rosenbloom, 1995; Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen & Bower, 1996; Christensen, 1997; Christensen & Overdorf, 2000; Adner, 2002; Charitou & Markides, 2003; Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Gilbert, 2003; Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006; Hwang and Christensen, 2008.
To test and exploreIs Christensen’s primary ‘innovator’s solution’ for dealing with disruptive innovations, being adopted in the Dutch publishing industry? And if not for what reasons?
Purpose of this study
Developments in publishing sector
Disruptive examples
• new media technologies• new entrants from outside the
industry• innovations from existing
information and communications companies
• changes in consumer behavior• new online and free channels for
information
• Declining circulation, advertisement and revenuePublishing industry offers good
context
Development over time Characteristics
• Emphasize different attribute sets
• Lower performance on traditional attributes
• Simpler, cheaper, more accessible
• Valued by other market segments
• Improve over time to satisfy minimal demands in mainstream market
Disruptive innovations defined
Time
Perf
orm
an
ce
Source: Christensen and Raynor (2003)
Create a separate and autonomous BU
…to ensure
“In our research on disruptive innovation, the only instances when an original market leader successfully transitioned to becoming a leader in the new disruptive plane of competition occurred when the incumbent established an entirely autonomous business unit organized around the disruptive value proposition.”
(Hwang and Christensen, 2008)
1. Effective resource allocation process
2. Protection of resources, processes and values
Christensen’s primary ‘innovator’s solution’
Part
1Part
2Part
4Part
3
Methodology
Data collection
11 exploratory case studies
Nine years of research
Per case study, several semi-structured interviews were held with the CEO and top managers
Interviews aimed at finding:• How the company
percieved challenges posed by digital media
• How the company tried to deal with these challenges over time
• What organizing strategy was used for innovation projects
Annual publication based on a survey with over 100 respondents and interviews in the publishing sector
Part
1Part
2Part
4Part
3
The findings
Results from survey Results from cases
The percentage of publishers that creates a seperate business unit for dealing with digital media is fairly stable at 25%
Only three of the eleven case studies created a separate business unit
Majority of publishers does not seperate
8
3
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Percentage of publishers with seperate business unit for
digital media
Exploring their response
strategy in more detail
Graphical representation of findings
1: Totally integrated 5: Totally separated
1: Same business model 5: Different business model
1: Existing business customers 5: New business customers
1: Existing readers 5: New readers
1: Existing personnel 5: New personnel
1: Reactive 5: Proactive
1: Focus on development 3: Focus on Alliances 5: Focus on acquisitions
1: No conflict 5: Large conflict with existing business
0
1
2
3
4
5
Response strategy archetypes
The attacking changer
Large variation in response strategy
1: Totally integrated 5: Totally separated
1: Same business model 5: Different business model
1: Existing business customers 5: New business customers
1: Existing readers 5: New readers
1: Existing personnel 5: New personnel
1: Reactive 5: Proactive
1: Focus on development 3: Focus on Alliances 5: Focus on acquisitions
1: No conflict 5: Large conflict with existing business
0
1
2
3
4
5
Response strategy archetypes
The attacking changer
Large variation in response strategy
1: Totally integrated 5: Totally separated
1: Same business model 5: Different business model
1: Existing business customers 5: New business customers
1: Existing readers 5: New readers
1: Existing personnel 5: New personnel
1: Reactive 5: Proactive
1: Focus on development 3: Focus on Alliances 5: Focus on acquisitions
1: No conflict 5: Large conflict with existing business
0
1
2
3
4
5
Response strategy archetypes
The attacking changer The fortifying defender
Large variation in response strategy
1: Totally integrated 5: Totally separated
1: Same business model 5: Different business model
1: Existing business customers 5: New business customers
1: Existing readers 5: New readers
1: Existing personnel 5: New personnel
1: Reactive 5: Proactive
1: Focus on development 3: Focus on Alliances 5: Focus on acquisitions
1: No conflict 5: Large conflict with existing business
0
1
2
3
4
5
Response strategy archetypes
The attacking changer The fortifying defender
Influenced by firm-specific attributes
Factors of influence Account for heterogeneity
Response strategies were found to be influenced by various incumbent-specific characeristics, such as:
• Overall strategy• (Financial) resources• Relative disruptiveness• Influence and values of staff• The customer segment• The type of ownership• Past experience• Time pressure• The vision of leaders
Our cases highlight the complexity and multi-facetted issues that play a role in the way incumbents respond to disruptive innovations.
It seems previous studies on disruptive innovation do not account sufficiently for this variation in incumbent’s responses to disruptive change and have downplayed the role of incumbent heterogeneity.
Part
1Part
2Part
4Part
3
Analysis and discussion
‘Cramming’
Observations • Publishers often used an one-size-fits-all organizing
strategy for innovation projects (internal light weight teams)
• Their innovation strategy was characterised by primarily editorial-driven product innovation
• They often failed to link disruptive innovations to new (disruptive) business models
Contingency approach
Observations • Publishers often used an one-size-fits-all organizing
strategy for innovation projects (internal light weight teams)
• Their innovation strategy was characterised by primarily editorial-driven product innovation
• They often failed to link disruptive innovations to new (disruptive) business models
The injunction to spin off new businesses might be too narrow• Strategic similarity, synergies and timing• Companies can be (temporarily) shielded by their specific
customer segment• A disruptive innovation does not necessarily takes over the
entire market• Disruptive is a relative term and potential conflicts should
be viewed from the perspective of each company individually
Managerial implications
Questions to answer in decision making process
• De we want/need to respond by embracing the disruptive innovation? (e.g. Markides, 2006)
• What would the ideal business model look like to exploit this innovation? (e.g. Hwang and Christensen, 2008)
• What kind of conflicts would this business model create in terms of processes and values in the existing business? (e.g. Christensen & Overdorf, 2000)
• What kind of synergies can be realized between the new business model and the existing one? (e.g. Markides & Charitou, 2004)
• How do we access the new required capabilities?
Managerial implications
When choosing to integrate it is important to:
• Have personal attentive oversight of the CEO• Shield the project from the existing standards and policies• Focus on exploiting synergies with the traditional business
not imitating disruptive entrants• Prevent rigid threat induced behaviour, look at it as an
opportunity
Future research
Topics for future research
• Linking response strategies to the likelihood of survival/higher performance
• Identifying the relevant variables for successful strategies in disruptive environments
• Investigating in more detail the effectiveness of different approaches for bridging the capability gap (current organization, new staff, alliances, acquisitions)
Future research
Thaesis current research activities
• Dealing with tipping points and industrial convergence• Striking the right balance between exploitation and
exploration (ambidexterity)• Effectiveness and appropriateness of different strategies to
bridge the capability gap
Thaesis overall research goal
• Identifying the set of conditions that influences the appropriate adapting strategies that will ensure the continuity of different organizations in turbulent environments.
Thank you…for your attention. For any questions please feel free to contact us.
Strategy consultancy Thaesis Hans van Moorsel
Since 2006 Kanaalweg 17L-A
www.thaesis.nl 3526 KL Utrecht, The Netherlands
+316-50585953
[email protected] +3130-267 3514
@HvMoorsel