Innovative thinking of big companies: disruptive innovation is hard to succeed

Genetic extension innovation is easy to succeed in large companies, disruptive innovation can hardly succeed. Fanke, founder of internet entrepreneur, Javaeye website. Originally posted in the author's personal blog. Scott D.anthony (Tesla · The new CORPORATE garage, d. Anthony, a senior consultant and innosight partner, presents an interesting view that we are moving into an era of innovation: as the cost of innovation and the threshold for innovation continue to fall, Big companies are less vulnerable to innovation competitiveness, and "innovative catalysts" that are entrepreneurial in large companies can leverage the resources, size and brand of large companies to make significant product and business innovations. This type of innovation is VC investment small start-up companies have no conditions to achieve, the size of large companies no longer become an obstacle to innovation, but the cornerstone of innovation. Scott has 4 major corporate innovations in the industry: the United States of the medical device industry, Unilever, the FMCG industry, agribusiness, and IBM, the IT industry. As for Scott's point of view, I agree with the summary of the type of innovation in big companies, but I do not fully agree with the view that now has entered the era of big company innovation. I think there are two types of innovation: genetic extension and disruptive innovation, the innovation that big companies use their own resources, scale and brand under the action of "innovation catalyst" belongs to "gene extension innovation", this kind of innovation is easy to succeed in big company environment, another kind of "disruptive innovation" can hardly succeed in big company. What is the company's genes? Gene refers to a successful company in the competition process in this field, in order to adapt to the high optimization of business competition, it is this high optimization and even evolution to establish the company's leading position in this field, which is that the company's gene Gene can guarantee the company's advantage in the core competitive field, It can also become a barrier to expansion into other areas, as seen in the competition from many large companies, such as Microsoft's in the PC software era, but frustrated by the internet, and Google in the Internet industry, but not at Facebook's social competition Nokia, once the king of functional handsets, has declined to the rise of smartphones and mobile internet. Dr. Wu of Google, in the top of the wave, sums up "the law of genetic decision", which means that the company's genes determine whether they can make a difference in a new field. Even the great innovator, Apple, has failed to break the law of genetic decision, and while Apple is invincible in consumer electronics hardware and software, its attempts to ping products in the social arena have been a Game, and icloud has made progress But so far it has not played a great power. Therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the success of large companies is that innovation must follow the company's gene growth, the company's advantages in the core areas to a new field, this mode of innovationI call it: Genetic extension innovation, Scott's 4 examples. The same is true of the big companies in the domestic internet industry, which have been the most high-profile companies in the last two years--non-Sina Weibo and Tencent Micro-trust. We can split it all: Sina's gene is the internet media, Sina Weibo inherits from the operation of Sina has always been strong media operating mode, and the accumulation of its own media resources advantages of strong import, so quickly bigger, resulting in huge social benefits, creating a mobile new media. According to a new survey, Sina Weibo has more than 60% mobile traffic, so Sina Weibo is a successful case in which Sina is using its own genetic extension to innovate. Tencent's genes are personal communications tools and personal entertainment products, but in the field of mobile Internet, QQ products are not suitable for many aspects. Although the micro-letter is far from the Tencent headquarters of the Guangzhou Institute of Independent Innovative products, but the micro-letter still does not break away from Tencent to do personal communication tools products gene, so in the micro-letter products, the use of Tencent's huge QQ user resources to import, to achieve amazing success. Therefore, micro-letter is Tencent in a new field (mobile Internet) to use their own gene extension innovation success stories. Gene extension innovation to succeed, must conform to two: first, innovative products must conform to the big company genes, if the gene is not right, even if Scott's respected "innovative catalysts" will not succeed. Google's social product, for example, has never been a real threat to Facebook, because Google's genes are technology-driven and have no social genes; Sina's foray into the field of online gaming has been a crushing defeat because Sina's genes are media, Along with the innovation of the media gene can be successful, Tencent is no exception, Tencent in the field of E-commerce in recent years has spared no effort, but the effect has never been, and Groupon's cooperation also sadly ended, despite the organization of Tencent this year restructuring, once again sounded the Horn of E-commerce, but I am not very optimistic The reason is that Tencent has no genes for e-commerce. Second, the extension of the new field to have this gene product market space to accommodate Sina Weibo and Tencent Micro-letter extended to the mobile Internet area has enough market space, so the media as the core of micro-blog, personal communications as the core of the micro-letter to fully display their fists. If the market does not contain enough space, it still cannot succeed. Apple's Apple product, for example, is a typical example of Apple's iphone shipments of about more than 10 million PCs a month, with about 5 million ipad shipments, which contribute to Apple's main revenue and profits, while Mac computers ship about more than 1 million units, Contribution income and profit ratio is very low. We assume that even if Apple makes a very successful integrated TV, how much will it sell in a year? Mobile phone is a hand, television is a family, mobile phone is two years at least three years must change, and the television's moreFor a period of at least 5 years, if the average family of 3-4 people, the iphone sales should be about 5 times times Apple, in other words, Apple sold to the iphone, but only sell 2 million units a month, the market imagine less space. To sum up, big companies to innovate success, as Scott said, the need for innovative catalysts, the need for large companies to help the resources, size and brand, but also need to select the direction of innovation and the field, that is, the direction of innovation to meet the company's genes, innovative areas to have enough market space. In addition to genetic extension innovation, there is another innovation: subversive innovation. Google's search for keywords, for example, has upended the portal-recommended content model that Yahoo relies on for a living, and it has completely declined; Google's free online service model overturns Microsoft's model of selling individual boxed software, making the latter no longer the darling of the Times; The mobile internet era pioneered by Apple iOS , subversion of a large number of traditional smartphone and functional handset manufacturers, subversion of the PC Internet age, a large group of companies. This disruptive innovation has great destructive power, and it will undermine the core business model of large companies, which will bury the entire industry and even the entire traditional market. So disruptive innovation can hardly be achieved in large companies, as resistance within the company can easily stifle disruptive innovation. And subversive innovation is precisely VC-driven entrepreneurial companies relatively easy to achieve. Disruptive innovation redefined the rules of the game, opened up new market space, the big companies and start-ups to the same level of competition, so disruptive innovation is often implemented by entrepreneurial companies. From this point of view, I do not entirely agree with Scott. Disruptive innovation, although difficult to base in large companies, but there are still large companies to subvert the successful case of innovation, in general, large companies to achieve disruptive innovation prerequisite is: Change the company's genes. When the company's genes have been changed, disruptive innovation has become the extension of the company's gene growth innovation, which has entered the dominant field of large companies, the success of the grasp greatly improved. Changing the company's genes is certainly difficult, but there is a case for success, and the most effective way to change genes is to acquire, in particular, a pioneering team with a strong innovative ability to inject genes into the company. For example, in the late 1996, Apple, which was teetering on the verge of acquiring Steve Jobs's next company, brought Apple's revival in 1997 years as Apple's interim CEO. After the revival of Apple executives, except for vice president of Industrial design Jonasenaiv, exclusively's next team, the old Apple was all washed away, and the core technology that brought the company's renaissance came from next. Instead of buying next, Apple is buying a reverse takeover of Apple, and then Apple is just a next company in the Apple logo vest. After the acquisition can not be acquired by the gene into the company, often acceptThe purchase is futile, Microsoft acquired the Reoz Groove Company in 2005, appointed Reoz as Microsoft's chief architect, also aimed at transforming Microsoft's genes to strengthen Microsoft's competitiveness in the Internet, but eventually Microsoft failed to change genes because of Reoz, but Reoz sadly departed. In short, from the point of view of innovation, the problem that big company Innovates to encounter is the obstacle that the gene causes and scale brings, the problem that venture company Innovates is easy to encounter is the lack of resources and the development of shortage of funds, each have each of the difficulties. I think the future innovation trend should be big companies and startups go hand in hand, rather than big companies by virtue of resources, size and brand advantages of a single show.