Spotting Disruptive Technology - Timing is Everything!

In the first post in this mini series on Disruptive Technology I discussed why we need to expect the unexpected - in a nutshell most of us spend our working days involved in our daily routine trying to plan develop and market our product. Meanwhile, whilst we aren't looking or dreaming in other directions there are groups of people who have dedicated themselves to doing something completely different and destroying our product and our market. It's nothing personal - its just (to paraphrase) - all is fair in love, war and technology development. Its been happening for a long time - think of the canal owners who suddenly had a new competitor with a new bigger faster technology called the railway. Or carriage makers just before Mercedes, Benz and friends came along.

In this second post we will discuss the timing impact and various key questions that are really just questions of timing and product timing decisions.

So we have made firm resolutions and have spotted some disruptive technology lurking somewhere away on the horizon - what's next?

Unfortunately, spotting these potential disruptions is only the tip of the iceberg, it is all to easy to be drawn in by the hype and buzz around these new areas. Firstly, curiosity is a strong human trait (and it is generally well developed in Product Team Members), the buzz can be more exciting than our regular work and in big organisations it can seem to be a way to stand out from the crowd (guru).

On the other hand, it seems that everybody is doing this. Remember, there are people out there who earn their salary creating this impression. Without being too cynical, the technology hype pays their bills.

For those of us who played team sports as kids remember how everybody used to chase the ball - didn't matter if you were defence or attack you ran after the ball. Later on we developed more discipline and strategy and stopped chasing the ball and started to play the game. That is one of the challenges of disruptive technology - to figure out when to chase and how to play the game.

So in analysing Disruptive Technology we must then exercise our judgement on the probability that the technologies will mature, that they will impact our area, and finally the hardest question of all - when? What is the relevant time frame?

Getting these factors wrong can ruin a perfectly good business or product strategy no less than ignoring or not spotting the technology. By way of example in the Telecom space around 2005 everybody was buzzing about IMS and how it was going to change the Telecom industry as we knew it. There were almost daily announcements of new products, initiatives and commitments. It seemed that overnight all our calls would be IMS based.

Looking back the objectives of were valid, the overall impact of IMS and IMS like technologies has been profound and are on going - but from a telecom's industry perspective "the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" (Mark Twain). In summation without getting into a theological argument (IMS believers vs. IMS non believers) by 2011 we can say that IMS is not yet main stream and whilst it has impacted many businesses it has not (yet) fulfilled its hype of 2005.

Clearly, companies that assumed that IMS was the next best and greatest thing made the wrong call. Whether this was to develop new technology products based on IMS or to build consumer and business services over IMS they are probably somewhat disappointed. Equally so you could have made the decision to stop investing in current development (to favour IMS) and missed out on a lot of opportunities in the last 5 years or so.

The point of this post is not to analyse IMS in depth, but to use it as an example (from our own industry) of the dangers of incorrectly analysing the impact and the timing of the impact on a product space. Many companies made the wrong judgement call.

Looking back the single most important error was probably the lack of business case to justify such a large risk and technology change. (A reminder to always use business fundamentals.) There was huge hype and like the example of team sports earlier, everybody was chasing the IMS ball. There were only a few brave solitary voices in the wilderness calling out with a different message.

Overall IMS is a good example of a disruptive technology that many spotted, but very few managed to answer the key questions of the probability that the technology would mature, its impact on their industry and most critically on when it would impact. Ultimately, all these questions become a question of timing - when will it happen?

The product teams involved had to set their product requirements, make their product decisions and position their product based on their assumptions about the impact of this disruptive technology. Many errors were made.

Clearly it is key to our product and business strategy that we actively seek and successfully spot disruptive technologies. However, we also need to be able to stand back from the hype and think strategically and coldly analyse the likely impact and timing of the new technology.

The final posts of this series will discuss some practical ideas for systematically discovering and analysing new technologies.

Social Media Strategies

Social Media is clearly one of the essential tools for Product Managers and Product Marketers.

Actually I say "clearly" and then I reflect upon my time in a medium sized high tech telecom company and all of a sudden it isn't clearly or even a bit obvious.

We had an excellent marcom department, that did some amazing things with web technology and customer engagement - but the average PM had no interaction with customers via social media. To be honest many of us had no idea what Social Media was or what was involved and we probably couldn't have defined it beyond "That's Facebook right?"

A few months on I am convinced that the product and the product positioning would be in a different league if we had done some basic social media work. Our understanding of the customer and customer engagement would have been substantially improved.

I am pretty sure that my experiences are reflected in many global companies - the Product Team are kept well away from Social Media - either through lack of awareness or because they are deemed dangerous without the corporate review and rubber stamp process.

This is a topic that the JET team will be dealing with in the near future - meanwhile we recommend this Techcrunch post - that talks about the different media and how the Internet is evolving and changing Social Media. Recommended.

Spotting Disruptive Technology - Why It Matters

This is the first part of a mini-series on how to identify, analyse and react to disruptive technology. On this article we discuss why we need to be constantly looking for disruptive technologies.


As a PM one of the hardest things is to keep an eye on disruptive technologies and their likely impact on our product lines. In many cases it is nearly impossible to find time just to keep up to date on developments in our own field. Like in any other job we are focused on the daily routine and immediate needs of our product and on its internal and external customers. It is hard to find time to look beyond the immediate and work out what is happening out there in the big wide world.

Yet identifying disruptive technology is one of our most critical tasks – to bring a trivial yet valid example; there were probably teams of PM all working diligently on the latest features of typewriters such as electric, quieter, better ink ribbons whilst over at IBM, Microsoft and Apple they were busy working on mass produced PCs with word processors. There are numerous examples of major disruptive technologies appearing from no where and killing an industry dead almost overnight – DVD and videos – digital and film cameras.

However, identifying disruptive technologies is actually a difficult task, for several reasons -

1. It requires a substantial on going investment in general reading and research – something that we will all normally put off until next week when things are quieter.
   
2. It is often very difficult to identify where the challenge is coming from; in many cases the threat comes from out of market and not from our traditional competition. Did the typewriter teams keep an eye on the emerging computing market? Did Nokia spot what Apple were planning? Apple were a new player in Nokia's market, yet managed to blend their existing product capabilities with some new technology and a Palm Pilot concept and Nokia are still licking their wounds several years later.
   
3. The speed of development – all too often by the time you have heard of the threat it is (almost) too late.

Unfortunately, without have constant focus on disruption, we will always be surprised. Our natural focus is on incremental features and customer requests. This is often the case even when planning the Next Generation magical market leading product. We will become focused on meeting our product and time objectives and forget to understand what is going on outside our company.

To be fair, not all disruptive technologies will stop an industry in its tracks, but, by definition they will substantially change the way we could or should do business. If we spot them early enough they could be a substantial differentiator in our favour; on the other hand if we spot them too late .....

So one of the key tasks for any successful PM is to dedicate part of their working time to reading around – focus on your own industry (your customers and competitors) and segment but also look around you at other areas what's happening in other industries and let your imagination run wild about the possible impacts and changes.


Of course expecting the unexpected is hard and predicting the unpredictable is much harder than that – but we need to do so. It is hard to conduct a strategic product review or to make intelligent product decisions without understanding the bigger picture and looking at the potential impact of disruptive technologies.


In the next blog we will look at ways of finding the information that we need, the dangers of trying to figure out the timing and how to promote discussion within the organisation. We will also discuss some formal methodologies that we developed to analyse the impact of these technologies on our business.

WAC - Innovation & Standardisation

As telecom guys, we can’t let last week’s Mobile World Congress go by without a mention. One of the announcements was about the WAC (Wholesale Applications Community) standard. The WAC initiative was founded a year ago, has published v2.0 of the standard this week and plans v3.0 later in the year. A few telecom operators and suppliers have made some supportive announcements.

The basic idea of WAC is to allow developers a device agnostic way to bring their products to market and it will also improve operator involvement with application stores by allowing the operators to offer added value and services through their network. It is the latest in a series of initiatives to try to standardize this area of the telecom market.

Significantly Apple and Google are not members of WAC and are enjoying significant commercial success with their application stores. (In January Apple announced the 10 billionth app download.) They both choose to innovate aggressively, to create their own solution and to shun the standard approach.

The purpose of this blog is not to debate the merits of WAC, or its chance of success, but rather to consider the correct balance between standardization and innovation from the perspective of Product Management & Marketing.

Conventional wisdom (since the days of Henry Ford) has been that standardization rules. It simplifies the process, drives down costs and is at the core of mass production. WAC has the same objectives in mind – “WAC is …..dedicated to establishing a simple route to market for developers to expose their new applications to a customer base of over 3 billion customers.” It has been a brave PMM that has chosen non standard solutions – they increase cost, reduce the likelihood of success and are generally guaranteed to cause project delay.

However, Apple and Google have gone their own ways; and built their own solutions and created de-facto standards around their own eco-systems. Their strategy is that standardization should not be allowed to obstruct innovation. (There are many other technology examples in the past that followed the same basic strategy.)

However, also in the Telecom news was the agreement between Nokia and Microsoft. Behind the headline is the recognition that these two mega companies each with a strong tradition and proved track record of innovation have failed to deliver individually with Symbian (Nokia), MeeGo (Nokia & Intel) and Windows Phone 7 (MS). So clearly innovation even when driven by market leaders is no guarantee of success.

Often the process of standardization reduces innovation to the lowest common denominator to reach broad consensus and it can be driven by strong partisan commercial interests. In almost all cases it slows down the process – WAC is a good example. Compare the few early commitments with the number of devices and solutions in the Droid and Apple app stores.

Of course most PMM do not have the luxury of being able to create eco-systems on the scale of the app stores. However, we do need to balance standardization and innovation. Even today it is probably a wiser move to innovate in the context of app stores and not to rely on the WAC standard.

In many ways it is harder for the regular PMM; our product decisions are complex. We have to balance our need to differentiate with the need to be accepted via standardization. Our products are often expected to differentiate. We must also make some tough judgment calls on which are the correct standards and if it they are really appropriate for our product. If we are building a bleeding edge product we will often need to decide how we build a product that can be launched today yet is flexible to rapid change if a standard develops in a different direction.

Standardization is needed and should be supported, yet we need to remember when and how to innovate. Clever well executed innovation can be much faster to market and a strong differentiator and there is always the (remote) chance of creating a de facto standard!

When we manage our products we need to carefully evaluate what is our true ability to innovate and to generate product leadership and differentiation and when should we rely on standards and standardization. This is not a purely technical or tactical question. It is a strong commercial and strategic decision; just because a standard exists it does not mean that it will be commercially successful, nor that it is the correct product positioning for our product. The Telecom world has many examples of the standard that never caught on; Betamax is another example of the standard that didn’t bring commercial success.

However, to ignore an easy standard solution will ensure that we invest scarce resources in re-inventing the wheel rather than in creating the product we want in the time scale we need.

The balance between innovation and standardization is very difficult to achieve. Standards can simplify our product yet take time to evolve and are frequently not the best solution. On the other hand, wild innovation can produce an isolated, weak, expensive and late solution. However, without innovation it is very hard to differentiate at the product level. Finding the correct balance between innovation and standardization is The Art of Product Management & Marketing.

Promoting a Brand - Some thoughts from Richard Branson

I have recently discussed the product aspects of the Nike 10K Night Run. One of the issues that I raised was the value of a brand and how the race was designed to enhance and promote Nike as a sports brand. I also mentioned that Adidas managed to get in on the act by taking advertising space along the route.

I am reading “Screw it – Let's Do It” by Richard Branson the founder of the Virgin group. It is a fascinating book describing how he started out as a school boy entrepreneur and how he developed Virgin. The book itself will be the subject of a future blog.

However, in this blog I want to discuss Branson's insights into branding. The chapter is called Sex Appeal and true to the title he discusses how to make the brand irresistibly attractive. His concept of sex appeal is “A good brand has sex appeal .... the customer falls in love with it, desires it, wants it and buys into it. Sexy is youthful, fun, trendy, cool whatever your age.”

Now at the outset I will concede that I don't think that Branson is just a regular guy doing a regular marketing job – he is a real visionary (there are over 330 Virgin companies) and now that he has success he commands marketing budgets that are, well how shall we say it? – Enough to completely fund the development and launch of 5 or 10 of our best ideas, and a certain fame that brings attention (if not success) to almost whatever he attempts.

Branson also admits that he has enjoyed the stunts he has pulled – from record breaking hot air ballooning to being suspended above Time Square in nude bodysuits. He recounts how one of the pioneers of alternative air travel Sir Freddie Laker encouraged him to be the face of his product, and make the personal commitment.

So I accept that for all of these reasons Branson is not just a regular guy. He is frequently promoting consumer brands rather than the next new killer widget; and so there are many many differences between what he does and what many of us do day in and day out. None the less there are some clear lessons in his messages.

Branson says that he advises all entrepreneurs

“whatever your field, you must be passionate about it and create excitement in everything that you do. Beat your drum, and look beyond the obvious. .... I fully believe that the presentation and image of one's business should reflect the fun as well as all the hard work behind it. In my opinion there are no limitations on what is possible or what should be attempted.”

I think that in 2 or 3 sentences Branson has summarised what Nike were trying to achieve with the night race (notice the similarity between the Nike slogan and the title of Branson's book.)

Of course the brand has to act as a real differentiator the product has to be instantly recognisable - “I will stretch the parameters every time because there is so much competition, you have to stand out from the herd.” However, the promotion and branding must remain faithful to the product - “be true to the product. Don't make it something it's not. Take a good luck at the image you want to promote and go along with it”

Branson also discusses that the products must back up the brand. Having brand alone without the products to match will not work. He describes how he is constantly taking a personal interest in what both the customers and the staff think (“... it is real market research...”) and how the potential for damaging the brand is substantial with poor products. “At Virgin we want to create the most respected brand in the world... but a brand is only as good as your products.”

Part of his philosophy is accountability and engagement – he believes that people need to acknowledge their mistakes, but to engage in the debate and not be debated with no defence or leadership. He comments “it makes me angry to see organisations in crisis that with tens of thousands of employees hiding behind 'no comment.'”

So it is actually pretty clear what the race was all about. It was engaging the customers and making them part of the fun, passion and commitment that they are trying to achieve for their brand and for their image. It was a way of leading the debate, getting their customers involved and trying to stand out from the crowd (ironically, since with 15K runners there was a very strong herd effect!!!)

I think that here are some of the secrets of successful product development and especially product marketing – it needs to be fun, passionate and full of hard work and we need to break down the barriers – so that there are no limitations. Sure there are budget issues and product readiness status, but, we need to work to make sure there are no limits.

Our brand needs to be true to the product and the product needs to be true to the brand. Both the product and the brand need to stand out.

It is critical to listen to our customers to ensure that the brand and the product continually live up to their expectations. A race is one of the rare situations where you can get the customer to offer the commitment and passion in partnership with you, but, you must always get the customer involved.

As product managers and marketeers we must offer a personal commitment to our brand and product, our energy our commitment and our responsibility.

In one sentence - the secret of branding is to offer a personal commitment and work hard to develop and promote a great product that breaks barriers, engages and excites the customers and have a great time in the process.

Finally in Branson & Sir Freddie Laker's words - “If you are starting your own company, a good lesson would be to think very hard about your image and how to brand it. ... get out there and use yourself.”

Screw It – Let's Do It Expanded – Lessons in Life and Business – By Richard Branson 2007 – published by Virgin Books.

The analysis and opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Branson or of Virgin Books.