INNOBLOG

One of the tenets of Innosight's thinking is that organizations need to select managers with the right backgrounds, not just "the right stuff." An organization should look for managers with the right "schools of experience" to deal with situations that may be unfamiliar to the organization as a whole.

Today's Wall Street Journal brings us a story that demonstrates an application of this idea. A nonprofit foundation called the Fritz Institute and companies like DHL are putting together team of experienced logistic professionals who can help solve the logistics problems that come with disaster relief efforts.

Bringing teams of experienced professionals, such as DHL's Airport Emergency Team, into disaster relief operations directly contributes to the ability of governments and NGOs to get supplies to where they are needed. The team has already helped in Iran, Sri Lanka, the post-Katrina American South, and Pakistan. The teams coordinate closely with the authorities responsible for the relief efforts and the organizations--both military and civilian--who do the work. These logistics professionals provide much needed expertise that government, NGO, and military managers do not have.

These teams are a great example of how industry can help provide solutions to public problems. In my personal experience with international relief operations (such as in Central Africa following the Rwanda genocide), I can certify that this kind of expertise is worth hundreds of tons of supplies.

Our hats are off to the companies and individuals doing this work, and to Mr. Lynn Fitz who set up his own foundation to provide this innovative solution.

It is a widely known fact that thousands of people die in car accidents every year. It is more dangerous to drive than to fly, we say. To mitigate this, car manufacturers are investing millions in R&D programs that increase safety in vehicles. Of course, "death prevention" is a noble goal - but taking a step back, are cars overshot on safety?

A recent business week article "Cars That Brake When You Don't", highlights new technologies from Honda Motor Co. that prevent accidents by essentially usurping control of the braking mechanism. These cars sense the imminent safety risk, and initiate braking, tighten safety belts, and alert the driver, all in an effort to avoid the accident. One Toyota GM is quoted as saying "The ultimate aim is to create a car that cannot crash."

Again, I must reiterate that this goal is noble. However, is it necessary? From the rollout plans, it seems these high end safety systems (at a cost of $4300 per vehicle) can only be included in luxury vehicles. While it is unlikely that consumers will turn down safety features, how many would pay extra for them? Evidently, at this price tag, very few.

And, isn't that the mark of an overshot product?

All those who care about innovation should mourn the passing on November 12th of Vice Admiral (retired) Arthur Cebrowski. After a long naval career, Cebrowski later headed the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation. In that capacity and in his earlier position as the head of the Naval War College, Cebrowski advocated major changes in the way America's defense community operates. Some of these ideas represent a direct application of Clay Christensen's concepts to defense problems.

For instance, Cebrowski supported the building of many smaller ships that could help the US provide presence in a probematic world. These ships, called "Streetfighters" would be cheaper and less sophisticated than many of the ships in the Navy's current inventory, but could be linked together through information networks to make them more effective. Although the Navy did not adopt all of Cebrowski's Streetfighter ideas, the new Littoral Combat Ship program shows his influence.

Another area of Cebrowski's influence is the idea of smaller, cheaper, "good enough" satellites that address the needs of regional commanders instead of centralized nodes in Washington. This program, in which Cebrowski and his colleagues explicitly applied disruption innovation theory, is already developing its fourth satellite, called TacSat 4.

Finally, Cebrowski was a leading advocate for the concept of "network centric warfare", which is one of the leading concepts in the ongoing Pentagon transformation process.

All of these ideas have their proponents and detractors. However, Cebrowski was a bold visionary and a leading defense innovator who will have a lasting influence on the way that the massive US defense establishment operates.

We wish him fair winds and following seas.

A terrific article in today's New York Times provided a case study in how to debase a brand. Ironically, the same institution illustrates how to extend one. The institution is one we know well -- Harvard University. The NYT front-page article focuses on Harvard's Extension School, which offers a wideranging courseload accessible without review by an Admissions Department. Fine enough -- the principle of making Harvard open to the broader community is an excellent one. But the University has taken things a step too far, marketing the courses as the Harvard experience, and even going so far as to offer a BA degree from the Extension School. Sure enough, people are obtaining their BAs, which they list as being from Harvard University, at a cost far less than they would pay at Harvard College, and with no screening by Admissions. Harvard has spent over 350 years building its brand, and now it has proceeded to dull it through this short-sighted move. We have seen other organizations follow a sadly similar course. In attempting to disrupt themselves, or simply to extend their reach into the market, they have pushed their brands too far. From Yves San Laurent to Delta Express, firms have misunderstood how easily brand equity can be muddied. A brand is strong if it links tightly with a customer's job to be done, occupying a very distinct piece of mental real estate. YSL could not stretch to encompass high fashion and cheap sunglasses, just as Delta could not extend from a high-service airline to a truly no-frills operation. This is not to say that the firms shouldn't have attempted these efforts, but doing it in a way so tightly linked to their core brand risked equity built up over decades, and also created tensions about just how far the low-cost or mass market approach could be pushed. Harvard seems to be marching down this path. However, the University shows a better way through its Harvard Business School Publishing. HBSP makes the Business School's famous case studies accessible to all. I even used them to teach salespeople in Zambia about some key business principles. As Clayton Christensen and Scott Anthony have described in Seeing What's Next, this model provides a way for HBSP to become an Intel Inside for educational programs around the world. No one confuses a course elsewhere for the HBS experience, even if it is based on HBS cases. HBSP succeeds in linking Harvard's brand equity to the cases, but not to the student. In a different vein, Calvin Klein has extended its brand to CK -- CK conveys a more off-the-cuff, less elegant message than the core Calvin Klein brand, and the price points are in line with this perception. Firms with powerful brands can disrupt themselves, but they must move with care.

A recent article in Business Week was titled Managing Google's Idea Factory. The article listed specific steps that Google is taking to encourage innovations, which are crucial for Google to be able to compete with giants like Microsoft and Yahoo! as well as newcomers like Technorati.

What do we like about their approach?

Rigor and discipline It is nice that Google mentions that not only creativity is key to their success, but so are the rigor and discipline behind their approach. The company has eight brainstorming sessions each year with 100 engineers. Six concepts are pitched and discussed for ten minutes each. The stated goal is to build on the initial idea with at least one complementary idea per minute.

Lead from the top Google recognizes that it is not enough to allow anyone at the firm to post thoughts for new technologies and businesses to mailing lists. They have instituted supporting processes that are led by management. Marissa Mayer, the Director of Web Products at Google, has open office hours much like a college professor where employees can talk through ideas. Google's personalized home page came out of this process. Also, all engineers have one day a week to develop their own pet projects, no matter how far from the company?s central mission. Google News came out of this process.

Act like a venture capitalist Google is willing to look for great ideas not only inside the company but outside as well. In 2004, the company bought Keyhole, which allowed them to develop Google Maps with sophisticated satellite imagery and maps

A key question is whether Google can sustain and continue to nurture this "innovation culture" as they grow. We'd love to hear your thoughts.

In case you missed it, the Wall Street Journal featured Innosight's cornerstone book, The Innovator's Solution by Clayton M. Christensen and Michael E. Raynor, as one of the five best books on business and the Internet. We at Innosight were very gratified to see the book receive this honor in the Journal's October 15, 2005 issue. I personally liked the line that the column's author used as his conclusion: "Better strategy could be the best innovation." Amen.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Chris Whittle (registration required) makes a compelling appeal for a disruptive approach to education. Whittle--the CEO of Edison Schools--argues that the United States needs a national-level R&D effort to address the problems of primary and secondary education. Whittle asks:

So where are our national policy makers? Where are the Bell Labs, Xerox Research Parks, Ford Test Tracks, Strategic Defense Initiatives and NASAs of education? Why is America so slow to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that schools are a national security priority -- and that federal funding of R&D investment in them would serve as, shall we say, Homeland Offense?

He compares today's education system to a highly fragmented industry, implying that a degree of consolidation--at least for the purpose of innovation--is required. He says, "our national political leadership must fund a whole new level of educational innovation."

Whittle calls for a new type of educational experience, freed from the resources, processes, and values of the "old design." The way that Whittle describes this new educational structure comforms well to the defnition of a disruptive innovation as "an innovation that cannot be used by customers in mainstream markets." The US education system, which grew in an organic way along with American settlement and economic development, is structurally unable to innovate in needed ways. The mainstream markets--in this case the public schools--simply cannot innovate sufficiently on their own.

The implication of Whittle's piece is that disruptive innovation theory could provide a pathway to educational reform. Those interested in improving America's schools should read The Innovator's Solution along with Whittle's new book.Chris Whittle Op-Ed