I will skip for the moment over the other two INTERNAL CHASMS--the EXPERTISE CHASM and the CANNIBALISM CHASM--to describe first the INDIVIDUAL CHASM of "THINKING OUT OF THE BOX." Why?
Well, this is the hard one for individuals, but more importantly, if someone is brave enough, good enough, and a little bit lucky, they'll succeed in THINKING OUT OF THE BOX and producing something potentially great. That's when they'll stumble on the next two INTERNAL CHASMS.
So, let's first describe the INDIVIDUAL CHASM. For starters, go see my TEDx talk at Livermore last summer, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2oeSFkV7eE&feature=youtu.be
What is relevant is the bloc from 9:45 to 13:50, a four minutes sequence.
What this small set of slides addresses is the question of how difficult it is for people to "forget what they know" in order to think about a new problem with fresh eyes/ears. This is really a willingness and ability to suspend domain knowledge that comes to bear which dismisses new evidence too quickly, without considering it from a fresh vantage point or through a new lens.
I cannot emphasize how hard this is to do. Paradigms, belief systems, points of view become so ingrained for us, especially in our specialties, that it is virtually impossible to step outside them. Joel Barker did some remarkably effective video tapes on this topic some twenty years ago; they were quite popular for a time, but few people today recall them.
Even if you can imagine outside your expertise realm, and come to grips with a new paradigm perspective (HARD to do), it gets worse if you decide to 'chase it'. You lose your status as an expert; you really become a novice again, this time in the new area. You risk losing (and often do lose) the credibility accorded you when you were "the expert" in the last paradigm. Your team likely loses faith with you, as might your bosses. It is a highly uncomfortable place to be.
This is when tenure int he university system, or a Fellow status in a company, is vital. This at least assures that you continue to eat. It does not, however, follow that you'll be able to attract new followers or supporters.
This, I believe, is the chief impediment to innovative leadership by previously innovative folk.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
The FUNDING CHASM, the first of three INTERNAL Chasms
As described before, these are the FUNDING CHASM, the EXPERTISE CHASM, and the CANNIBALISM CHASM.
The FUNDING CHASM happens when 'all the money' is needed for operational things... such as PROFIT, fixing quality problems, growing the sales force, etc. The classic problem these days is the dreaded Quarterly Report to Wall Street. For some reason, it is always 'up in the air' as the final days of the quarter approach, and it seems to be unthinkable to have a quarter 'miss forecasts'. Not hard to figure this one out. Discretionary spending stops, 'the future' is sold out for the present, the 'chickens will come home to roost' for the next CEO....
But it is more insidious than that. If a product line is sold off (judged 'mature' or not performing), the proceeds are seldom funneled into new investment on risky research for breakthrough ideas. If they go for development at all, they almost always go to 'speed up' current refinements. Compare this to how Steve Jobs managed Apple, where he used the proceeds from 'the Microsoft deal' to venture into music (the iPods) rather than tune the MacIntosh further. He used the iPod proceeds to fund the iPhone, hardly the kind of move that most company CEOs would endorse.
Smaller companies, where the same person or team handles the decisions to divest some things and the decision for new investments, are often able to fund 'the next new thing' but the FUNDING CHASM occurs when the skeptical majority--the beanies and the lawyers--are in charge of divesting old things and freeing up 'new money' and yet they are about the most risk-averse crowd imaginable for a corporation, which almost guarantees that they'll propose uses for the funds that are anything but bets on the future.
Do you see this in your company? Have you seen it in other companies where you've worked before?
The FUNDING CHASM happens when 'all the money' is needed for operational things... such as PROFIT, fixing quality problems, growing the sales force, etc. The classic problem these days is the dreaded Quarterly Report to Wall Street. For some reason, it is always 'up in the air' as the final days of the quarter approach, and it seems to be unthinkable to have a quarter 'miss forecasts'. Not hard to figure this one out. Discretionary spending stops, 'the future' is sold out for the present, the 'chickens will come home to roost' for the next CEO....
But it is more insidious than that. If a product line is sold off (judged 'mature' or not performing), the proceeds are seldom funneled into new investment on risky research for breakthrough ideas. If they go for development at all, they almost always go to 'speed up' current refinements. Compare this to how Steve Jobs managed Apple, where he used the proceeds from 'the Microsoft deal' to venture into music (the iPods) rather than tune the MacIntosh further. He used the iPod proceeds to fund the iPhone, hardly the kind of move that most company CEOs would endorse.
Smaller companies, where the same person or team handles the decisions to divest some things and the decision for new investments, are often able to fund 'the next new thing' but the FUNDING CHASM occurs when the skeptical majority--the beanies and the lawyers--are in charge of divesting old things and freeing up 'new money' and yet they are about the most risk-averse crowd imaginable for a corporation, which almost guarantees that they'll propose uses for the funds that are anything but bets on the future.
Do you see this in your company? Have you seen it in other companies where you've worked before?
Crossing the Chasm
Geoffrey Moore hit a home run with his book, Crossing the Chasm, some years ago. That book described the yawning gulf--a a chasm--between Early Adopters of a new idea/concept/product and the Skeptical Majority who have to be persuaded in order that any new thing be widely adopted.
It so perfectly described the problem for many Silicon Valley start-ups who sold their neat whiz bang to their friends but could not scale thereafter. The book, and the concept, was widely endorsed.
In a more recent book, Dealing with Darwin, Moore describes what happens later--once the product scales, the company has trouble with the encore. We've all seen this--companies become so wedded to their cool moneymaker that they overstay the situation, and when the profits erode, it's hard to climb back into innovation time.
Some--Gifford Pinchot notably-- argue for Intrapreneuring Innovation (THE PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG, right?)--as the way to overcome that unhappy circumstance. And actually, that is my thesis as well. But I lately have been doing this with some diagrams, built on top of Moore's later book.
I claim that their are FIVE CHASMS, not ONE.
ONE--the MARKETING CHASM--is what Moore describes. It is an EXTERNAL Chasm, meaning that it is centered with the erstwhile customer base, which must be motivated to change behavior.
The next THREE are INTERNAL Chasms, structurally determined by "the company itself," amenable to change only from WITHIN the corporation. I'll enumerate those in the next blog post
The last of the five, is a PERSONAL Chasm, which describes for AN INDIVIDUAL just why it is so hard to "THINK OUT OF THE BOX" once you've gotten good within a box. It's related, I think, to why it is so hard to teach old dogs new tricks, but it is much more a function of the discomfort and difficulty to give up cherished beliefs and skills and embrace the unknown.
I will call these, respectively, the:
MARKETING CHASM
FUNDING CHASM
EXPERTISE CHASM
CANNIBALISM CHASM
"OUT OF THE BOX" CHASM
We'll outline those in subsequent posts
It so perfectly described the problem for many Silicon Valley start-ups who sold their neat whiz bang to their friends but could not scale thereafter. The book, and the concept, was widely endorsed.
In a more recent book, Dealing with Darwin, Moore describes what happens later--once the product scales, the company has trouble with the encore. We've all seen this--companies become so wedded to their cool moneymaker that they overstay the situation, and when the profits erode, it's hard to climb back into innovation time.
Some--Gifford Pinchot notably-- argue for Intrapreneuring Innovation (THE PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG, right?)--as the way to overcome that unhappy circumstance. And actually, that is my thesis as well. But I lately have been doing this with some diagrams, built on top of Moore's later book.
I claim that their are FIVE CHASMS, not ONE.
ONE--the MARKETING CHASM--is what Moore describes. It is an EXTERNAL Chasm, meaning that it is centered with the erstwhile customer base, which must be motivated to change behavior.
The next THREE are INTERNAL Chasms, structurally determined by "the company itself," amenable to change only from WITHIN the corporation. I'll enumerate those in the next blog post
The last of the five, is a PERSONAL Chasm, which describes for AN INDIVIDUAL just why it is so hard to "THINK OUT OF THE BOX" once you've gotten good within a box. It's related, I think, to why it is so hard to teach old dogs new tricks, but it is much more a function of the discomfort and difficulty to give up cherished beliefs and skills and embrace the unknown.
I will call these, respectively, the:
MARKETING CHASM
FUNDING CHASM
EXPERTISE CHASM
CANNIBALISM CHASM
"OUT OF THE BOX" CHASM
We'll outline those in subsequent posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)