Guest post by Freek Duppen

As the knowledge partner of the World Innovation Forum, Capgemini Consulting has recently completed its global innovation survey on the current state of innovation. The study offers a unique perspective by looking at the differences in behavior of innovation leaders vis-à-vis laggards across five key areas (strategy, capabilities, technology, innovation function, and spending) in order to identify what drives the success of companies that view themselves as successful innovators.

The study is based on an online survey, generating responses from 375 executives (representing the full range of industries, regions, functional specialties, and seniority) and 13 follow-up interviews – to get a better understanding of the context of the findings and to add depth to the result interpretation.

In summary, this study reveals that:

• Given the strategic priority companies allocate to innovation and their corresponding spending plans, the maturity of their formal innovation governance structure lags behind considerably. To overcome many of the innovation bottlenecks encountered, it is time to establish an innovation function that is able to deal with this kind of innovation governance and decision-making.

• Furthermore, there is an enormous unlocked potential for innovation in the involvement of external parties in the innovation process. Innovation leaders may have out-paced their peers by simply being better at involving external parties, leveraging a much broader innovation network and increasing innovation potential.

• The study also shows that more value, in terms of impact on business results, is to be expected from business model innovation, than from any other form of innovation. Targeting new business opportunities in emerging markets is much more likely to be successful when approached outside of the traditional competitive landscape.

Mid of 2008 I was present at the kickoff in Amsterdam of a new book around Business Model Innovation. Together with Gert Steens, Patrick van der Pijl, and Mick Walvisch the first step on a new book from Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur was set.

Without going into all detailed steps Alex has made since then I would like to point you to a great initiative.

Alex has started together with Patrick: the Business Model Innovation Hub. The Hub is used as a community which not only reviews the chunks of the book as they come out. It mainly is a place where people with a strong common interest on Business Models meet. Therefore, besides the good stuff Alex produces, a lot interesting content is created by the community itself. Just to tickle your brains a bit:

• Deliberately unsustaining Business Models
• Tools for Business Model Innovation
• Open source licensing
• Business Model Patterns
• …

Just have a look at the presentation and see you at the Hub!

Working together with companies on various innovation projects and reshaping their Business Models it is often the case that a new project explicits a need to move into a different part of the current value chain. With Value Chains in this case I mean different organizations and enitities, consisting of resources and knowledge stream, all involved in the creation and delivery of value to customers (source: ValueChains.org).

Moving up ahead of the current value chain and tap into it requires organizations most often to work together with different parties, already present in the chain. Strange situations occur that organizations that are presently treated as customers, become in fact new channels for approaching end-users further down the chain. The current customers need to become partners with which driving business is taken to the next level. Of course this sounds more simple than it in fact is. Existing relations need to be re-shaped in way that also for the current customer, so the new channel, the still is a sound basis for doing business. Thinking win-win is key here. In establishing new partnerships companies try to reduce risks as much a possible, preferably in a early stage. Concentrating on possible financial benefits, this results in trying to create a position in which most of the value created together with the partner is heading in your direction. In contrast with this real partnerships first try to build maximum value together, and then divide this between them.

Recently HBR published an article about the difference in competition between the US and Europe and emerging markets, China in the article. Where in the US and Europe most customers demand excellent quality in China the largest segment is the “good enough” segment (62% share of market in 2005). The good enough segment is defined as “products of good quality, produced by local companies for a rapidly expanding group of value-seeking consumers with mid level incomes.” Distinguishment is made between premium, good enough, and low-end market segments.

The difference between “good enough” products and premium products is that “good enough” comes with only a limited number of features, rather than the full range, at a price significantly lower that foreign brands.
The shift in China towards “good enough” comes from two directions: Consumer that see their incomes grow shift from low-end products to the “good enough” segment, and consumers with a higher income move away from expensive foreign brands, towards locally produced products at an acceptable quality level.

What should multinationals seeking way into the Chinese market do when entering the market in China? When the market segment’s state is strong, companies should either maintain their premium status by holding of the “good enough” segment by lower costs and innovating to create a niche position. More interesting is the situation where the premium segment is weak or eroding. Then companies can choose to enter the market either from above, enter the market segment in order to hold off local competitors and the erosion of the premium segment, or enter the market from below. Entering from below means seek an alliance or even merger with a Chinese partner or even develop new products specifically for the Chinese market, applying new business model tailored to the Chinese situation. Doing so they can steel share from Chinese players and become market leader.

This all seams quite far away. After all it is about China. Why would “good enough” not apply in non-emerging markets? A large company like Philips now uses “Sense and Simplicity” for a slogan. Underlining the fact the company produces technological products that enhance life, without the hassle, complexity and frustration. The story goes that the company came to this shift in strategy when managers were given a DVD recorder to try at home. Most of them were no able to install it, let alone use it.
It is probably only a matter of time until more and more customers in the US and EU crave for simplicity, cutting out all features they will not use at a lower price, making the “good enough” market segment expanding far out of China. Consumer Vigilantes are already on the rise when their products and services bought are too complex to install it themselves.

During the Internet Bubble Business Model was one of the buzz words. Companies did not need a real strategy, a special competence, or even customers. The only thing needed was a web-based Business Model making vague promises about wild profits in a distant future (source Joan Magretta, HBR, 2002). Not strange that the term itself lost most of its power.

Now years further and wiser we know a business model definitely matters. Without a sound Business Model firms can launch as many new products and services they want to, only confusing customers more.
Companies with a sound Business Model know the value proposition, what the target client group is, which channels to use to approach them, what kind and type of relationship to maintain, what capabilities are required in-house or at a partner, how value is configurated, and of course how cost and revenue stream flow.

Having a proper Business Model not only clarifies things for you as a company; it helps to build and manage your reputation among your current and future clients.

Recently I stumbled upon an interesting article which states that we should not focus on the things we are good at, but concentrate on the areas we are not so great at. The theory behind it is based on researching to-be chess masters. Of course this differs 180 degrees from our common sense.

Applying this line of thinking to business it even becomes more interesting. Most companies have a strong focus on what they are good at, mainly because here the largest part of the cash flow is generated. In the excellent areas firms want to become ever more excellent, with trajectories such as Six Sigma. Nothing wrong here, unless you want to stay on top of business and innovate. Then you have to be aware of your current strengths, and more important where the room to grow is.

In the presentation I have plotted this concept on different Business Model areas.

Back from the Austrian slopes there was the news that China has introduced its first commercial passenger jet, the ARJ21 (Advanced Regional Jet). Not really strange; China is evolving its industrial capababilities is almost every business segment so why not commercial jets. China Aviation Industry Corporation start in the 70-90 passenger segment, in which demand is expected to reach 3,700 jet of which China”s contribution will be 330.
First jet is expected to take of end of 2009.
What is the new in this news? China Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC). is not just one company; it is a large conglomerate of 100 companies, Chinese as well as European and US based.

Bloomberg mentions the necessity of a strong network for maintenance and parts. “Even certification from overseas regulatory bodies is unlikely to guarantee sales for the ARJ21, which will need an extensive network of maintenance and spare-parts providers, industry officials have said.”
“The challenge would be bigger because the network doesn’t exist,” Robert Laird, senior vice president of greater China sales for commercial airplanes at Boeing, said in September. “They’d have to establish it through partnerships.’” (Source: Bloomberg)

AVIC already does business with GE and Rockwell for parts, so the basis for the network is there. If all goes well AVIC will create a new type of Ecosystem in which it will collaborate with its partners to develop new jet, also for other segments. And with development costs just above 1.1 billion dollars (8 billion Yuan at the current rate), compared to 20 billion which would be needed in the west there future will probably bring more news about Chinese commercial jets.

From the 3rd till the 14th of December the United Nations Climat Change Conference was held in Bali. Again loads of attention were given to the subjects of sustainability. Nowadays the topic has really found grounds in society; it is even fashionable to concentrate on environmentally friendly goods and services.

In this light there is a new way of designing goods, called cradle-to-cradle. The concept is launched by Wiliam McDonough & Michael Braungart in their book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. They advocate in favour of uncycling, not recycling. Why settle for the least harmful alternative when we could have something that is better–say, edible grocery bags! They offer several compelling examples of corporations that are not just doing less harm–they’re actually doing some good for the environment and their neighborhoods, and making more money in the process.
The basic idea behind the book is that we should eliminate our environmental footprint as much as possible. The book itself is a great example of the concept. It is designed in a different way than we are used to. It is printed on material which can be fully uncycled; the pages can be cleaned so that the ink can be re-used, the pages itself can be re-printed and fully re-used. In essence it is all about design.

Cradle to cradle requires re-thinking each part of the design, and the design as a whole. Using it as the new standard for design will lead to a necessity for innovating our business models as well. Firms core capabilities need to change, possibly also the partner network, leading to a re-newed value configuration. Companies applying the cradle-to-cradle philosophy will be able to create different, more intense, relations with their customers. Applying cradle-to cradle brings maximum benefits combining it with a new business model.

[pro-player]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo[/pro-player]