INNOBLOG

The following entry was submitted by InnoBlog reader, Juan Pablo Vazquez Sampere. He is the Managing Director of Stratemic in Spain. He had the following to say about Openoffice and it's impact on Microsoft:


Openoffice.org has gone portable. The open-source office productivity suite has just introduced a sustaining innovation to build on its existing disruptive innovation path and to separate this product from the rest of the software-gadget-like products.

They have introduced a new simplified version of its office software that runs from a USB drive. This innovation allows non-consumers to use the Openoffice.org suite on computers not connected to the internet or that dont have Openoffice.org installed.

But, why do I say non consumers when a user that wants to use the Openoffice.org software has it already installed in his personal computer? Because, according to the jobs-to-be-done theory (see The Innovators Dilemma Chapter 3) until now, the consumer was unable to use the software in all circumstances. In addition, this innovation is not like the previous sustaining innovations the open-source community has included in Openoffice.org. It is built upon the convenience differentiation factor allowing Openoffice.org to disrupt Microsoft Office inside its value network for the first time.

Before, Microsoft Office was the only office productivity suite that worked on any computer no matter whether or not it was connected to the internet. Now Openoffice.org can offer consumers this disruptive product in the same circumstances as Microsoft.

What are the possible reactions from Microsoft to this disruptive competitor? The value network has now been broken. Microsoft should make sure the sustaining innovation with on-demand Microsoft Office Live builds on improvements that not only will be valued by more demanding (and hence higher margin) consumers but will also be valued by lower-end consumers. If these two types of consumers are not seriously addressed in Microsofts strategy, they could find themselves serving only the very sophisticated upper end tier of consumers with the corresponding market shrinkage and loss of first-mover advantage.

Will Microsoft Office Live up to the challenge? Are infrastructural innovations capable of acting as a platform to introduce a sustaining innovation that will capture the next higher margin consumer and, at the same time, neutralize the disruptive competitor? Will Microsofts rigidities prevent them from reacting appropriately with Office Live?

Only time will tell

For more information:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableoo/
http://www.openoffice.org/index.html
http://www.microsoft.com/office/officelive/default.mspx


Juan Pablo Vzquez Sampere

Spot Runner, a new firm in the press lately, caught our attention as a disruption to traditional advertising agencies. They have a do-it-yourself model that enables local advertisers who otherwise couldn't afford to advertise on TV to do so. The idea is quite simple -

"advertisers can choose from a comprehensive library of professionally produced ads that can be viewed, purchased and personalized in a simple process online...with its proprietary media planning engine, Spot Runner also creates customized media plans by using some basic information entered by the advertiser, such as their industry and budget. The entire process, which can traditionally take months and hundreds of thousands of dollars, now takes just days and a fraction of the cost."

The company says its basic solution can cost as little as $500. While traditional advertisers would not find this solution anywhere near meeting their creative and media planning standards it is definitely "good enough" for local businesses like doggie day cares, hair salons and flower shops who otherwise couldn't advertise on TV because it has tradtionally been too complicated and too expensive.

Professor Christensen has stirred up an interesting debate about Apple's ability to maintain its current level of growth in the recent BusinessWeek article, "How Apple Could Mess Up, Again."

In this interview, he speculates that Apple's proprietary architecture will lose its competitive advantage in the future, as it did in the past. Prof. Christensens bases his argument on the theory of modularity which states that early on, when functionality and reliability is not yet good enough, a proprietary solution is right. However, when the technology matures and standardization occurs, the product becomes modular. The industry leader loses its competitive advantage and the ability to make money shifts down the value chain to those who control aspects of performance.

What is your view on this topic? What do you think Apple should do?

For more information about modularity, see Skate to Wear the Money Will Be, HBR, 2001.
See also, Chapter 5 in The Innovator's Solution.