Looking back at 2008 from the comfort of my armchair, it has been an exciting yet troubling time. Legends like Lehmann Brothers have simply disappeared, an early victim of the recesion. The whole US automobile industry went cap in hand, twice, to the US Government, as its defunct business model collapsed. Even the supposedly decoupled BRIC countries have seen growth fall to single digits, as they were hit by huge falls in demand. What’s in store for us in 2009?
Sadly, I do not know the answer to that question. It will emerge out of the myriad of interactions of all the players in the complex adaptive system that is the globalised market. We will have to wait and see.
That doesn’t mean that we need to go into 2009 on a wing and a prayer! There are valid lessons that we can learn from recent recessions, even from the great depression of the 30s. One of the lessons is the importance of innovation in preparing for the growth that always follows a recession. As a recent article in the McKinsey Quarterly on Innovation Lessons from the 1930s suggests, companies with great ideas and sufficient money should invest in them during the recession to drive growth afterwards. Companies like DuPont, Hewlett Packard and Google all took advantage of great ideas during previous recessions to emerge stronger out of them.
The biggest challenge in innovation is finding great ideas worth investing in. History shows us that 80% of innovations fail in the market. They are not the ones to be investing precious resources in, in good times or bad. The basic problem with the 80% who fail is that they didn’t meet any unmet customers needs. This is really a failure in the innovation process rather than in the innovations themselves. They were domed to failure. As I suggested in a recent blog post on Why You Need to Get Really Close to Your Customers in a Recession, the key to successful innovation is really understanding your customers needs; at the jobs they are trying to do and outcomes they are lookoing to achieve level. The blog post was about service innovation, but the principle applies just as much to product and experience innovation. Even to business model innovation.
As we enter the heart of the recession in 2009, companies will be forced to make some very difficult decisions. Many of them will not survive. This is Schumpeterian creative destruction at work. But the ones who survive, in particular, the ones who thrive after the recession is over, will be those who understood their customers needs best, who innovated around their unmet needs and who invested in these winning innovations during these most difficult of times.
Are you ready to be the new Google? You know what you have to do.
Post a comment or email me at graham(dot)hill(at)web(dot)de to get the conversation going.
Graham Hill
Customer-driven Innovator
Follow me on Twitter
Further Reading:
McKinsey Quarterly, Innovation Lessons from the 1930s
Graham Hill, Why You Need to Get Really Close to Your Customers in a Recession
Ulwick & Bettencourt, Giving Customers a Fair Hearing
Johnson, Christensen & Kagermann, Reinventing Your Business Model
Iyer & Davenport, Reverse Engineering Google’s Innovation Machine
Janet George has an interesting overview of how innovation havs evolved and the relative success rates of each evolutionary stage. It should come as no surprise that actively involving customers in all steps of the innovation process produces the highest returns on innovation.
Customer-Driven Innovation
http://www.svpma.org/eventarchives/Customer%20Driven%20Innovation.pdf
Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant
Interim CRM Manager
we are finding that in this economy, understanding customer/market values are even more critical, since they wont act if you just get it almost right. We have been using the Perceived Value Toolkit to quantifiably determine those values and how much they are willing to pay to obtain the benefits based on those values. We are finding differences from three years ago, but mostly on the level of benefits they expect to receive. Product design must be leaner and more specific. commercialization must be faster since they have a narrower time component. Design must fit their current production modes.