Success with Disruptive Innovation and Acquistions and Integration- More Than A Short Term Play?

Executive Summary: Literature on acquisitions to manage disruptive change often focuses on the art and science of the acquisition deal and the short term post-merger acquisition program. For the acquirer, are other organizational factors which must be in place for sustained longer term success? Are both success in the acquisition deal and success at the 180 day mark into post-acquisition integration just first steps in transforming an organization to align with disruptive change? If so, what boundaries, hand offs and interplay must exist between the organizational structures and related processes and the acquisition and integration effort? From the Desk of Objects-In-The-Rearview-Mirror-And-In-A-Firefight-Suffer-From-Short-term-Bias.

Flesh Out the Problem to Build A Solution

There are several approaches to handling disruptive change, however, let's drill down on one specific question:
For organizations which leverage acquisitions and integration ("and" is key) programs to handle disruptive change, success in the acquisition deal and success at the 180 day milestone into post-acquisition integration all they need for sustained success with disruptive change?

For simplicity, we consider a scenario where the acquirer needs to make just one acquisition in its inorganic deal strategy, even thought his thought process can be applied to multiple acquisitions in the inorganic change program.

Disruptive innovation is Tough for Organizations

After a certain size and scale, organizations have challenges in nurturing and sustaining paradigm shifts.

Size is a good first pick as a proxy for organizational inertia in accepting disruptive change. In The Innovator's Dilemma, Clayton Christiansen highlights the disk drive industry and how companies were not able to transform with technologically driven business paradigm shifts. On the other hand, experience with digital startups will tell you that they will go through some changes in strategic direction and the successful ones navigate these nimbly.

Also, let's pick span of disruption as another factor in considering the impact of disruptive change. In an industry where sales channels are commoditized and thin, and operations as well as operational efficiencies are key, a disruptive shift in operations would be a tougher challenge compared to a technological product shift, with a long gestation period and long sales cycle that can easily be plugged into an existing industry ecosystem.

Specific Factors Which Make Disruption Tough

Companies in specific categories of size and scale, in specific markets, have unique challenges with, and have unique (organic and inorganic) solutions for, handling disruptive change. Smaller startups may find it easier to change direction and compete head to head in their new space, compared to larger organizations.

Would you pick more factors to identify a unique set of challenges and solutions for disruptive innovation?

Rate of change in the market?
Investments (not just money) required in addressing disruptive change?
Rate of adoption of disruptive change in the market?
Ratio of investments for disruptive change versus run of business size and scale of operations?

Any other factors you would consider?

While I have listed just a few factors, especially those that are external to the organization, this line of thought would help us structure the distinct categories of challenges and solutions for specific data sets.

Driving the common understanding of its common challenges and solutions through an organization would be invaluable for more effective decisions in finance, corporate development and business development roles. This would be an important internal factor in handling and managing disruptive change.

As we delve into this list, you will find that the challenges and solutions set may vary at the sector, sub-sector, company and even the business problem level.

Acquisitions and Disruptive Change

A company with a sustained, successful acquisition strategy for disruptive change is an outlier.

There are examples from the Pharmaceutical and Technology industries, in outlier companies like EMC and Cisco, around their solutions to the "acquisition and integration" of disruptive innovation. Some thoughts are here:
http://reflectionsblog.emc.com/2012/06/explaining-emcs-success-in-ma.html

Questions Illuminate the Problem

Given the broader challenges in assimilating disruptive change, would you tailor your acquisition and integration strategy to the unique challenges and solutions set at the sector, sub sector, company and business problem level?

What factors would you pick to identify a unique set of challenges and solutions for "acquisition and integration" for disruptive innovation?

Is the "acquisition and integration strategy" for disruptive innovation a subset of the overarching problem of handling disruptive change in an organization?

If not, what would be time horizon for the "acquisition and integration strategy" to play out for the acquisition to be deemed a success? In this case, would success really be measured by how the company has handled disruptive change?

If so, what boundaries, hand offs and interplay must exist between the organizational structures and related processes and the acquisition and integration effort?

 Magic Bullets?

In this case, one approach could be to promote a federated organizational structure, set up functions as services to different units, and tailor unit performance monitoring and corporate services to its set of challenges and solutions. Is that a magic bullet, or does that need some further thought and tailoring?



What do you think?

Music Industry, Technology, IP and Piracy: Is there anything in common? Really?

Multiplicity of Approaches.

News articles on the music industry below, indicate a mutiplicity of approaches (could it be serendipity?) being followed by firms to deal with flagging "old media" revenues:
1> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/technology/04myspace.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=7e63eb66cebb344e&ex=1207454400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
2> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/cncarphone106.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
3> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/ccemi106.xml

The article, and my own experience in Technology Intellectual Property (IP), got me thinking again about the music industry's woes.

My contention is that any firm considering developing IP in emerging markets must think of the markets as hypercompetitive, where they compete with their own shadows. This might dovetail with the experience of some Venture Capital firms in Asia and Africa.

Allocate resources toward making money.

As some one who has created IP, in technology, in an emerging market, my generic stand (and I know this is likely to spark controversy) in that context is that protecting IP is subservient to growth- marketshare, ramping up revenues quickly, etc. Marketing muscle- either the company's own distribution strength, or the company's ability to create a network of stakeholders in its success- is critical towards finding a defensible niche where the company can build customer relationships/ stick. Allocate resources toward making money, instead of fighting a losing battle.

So What? How does this apply?

While the developed economy context is not the same, the first two articles seem to be a sign of parts of the value chain seeking to control the supply chain.
The third article seems to indicate a deepening of a pragmatic approach in the industry. An approach that focuses on developing models for making money off an economic reality, as opposed to fighting an (apparently) losing battle. For project management, I tend to advocate a multiplicity of approaches toward a more robust critical path. However, there are times when a multiplicity of approaches only serves to muddy waters.

Over the past few years, I have faced some flak for flatly advocating the pragmatic approach. What do you think?

The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company

This case focuses highlighting, in sharp relief, how strategy and analytics, as tools to lay the groundwork for all that follows, can help in execution. For the tool savvy, I expect lightbulbs for strategy and analytics to flash every time we trigger a tripwire within the case.

The real skill here is in identifying all the tripwires you can trigger in a structured manner. i.e. Analytics backed solutions you can generate, and then rank them by impact.

Your inputs are welcome- have fun!

The usual case/ problem solving approach is top down:
Strategy-> Marketing-> Sales-> After Sales-> Customer Support
Here’s a case that will help you think recursively through this process!
The approach to this post is: Case -> (followed by) Key 1: Points to Discuss-> Key 2: Structure.

Note: This case is a Work in Progress. The keys will be published separately.

Case 1
The Thought Provoking Case of The Consumer Electronics Company

You have a $450 CyberSleek AB1 camera from The Consumer Electronics Company- their first CyberSleek, released in 2002. It has served you well over the years. You moved recently and lost the little USB cord that connects the camera to your laptop.

You search for the cord at the website in vain, and finally call The Consumer Electronics Company's support number to request a USB cord for your camera. Over a 45+ minute call, the customer support person creates your profile on the The Consumer Electronics Company website, keeps you on hold while searching for the correct USB cord, and finally gets you free shipping for the $20 cord as per the promotion run at that point of time.

Unfortunately, when you receive the package, you find that you were shipped the wrong make of the USB cord.

Thinking that customer support may not have the right tools to help you, you look to give the website another try. You go back to the site, struggle for over and hour and finally find your cord this time by eliminating, as an option, the one you were mistakenly sent. You order the new cord and have to pay shipping charges this time around for a total of $30 in charges.

You call back to claim a refund because customer service shipped the wrong cord to you, and are asked to ship the first cord back, at your own expense, to claim a refund. You have already been charged for the new cord you bought from the website. Requesting customer support to check these details does not help your case.

Shipping the first cord back, where you pay the $20 charges for the customer service mistake, does not make sense to you. You have spent enough time on this task already. The cord is useless with you anyway. Finally you relent. You request that atleast the shipping charges be borne by The Consumer Electronics Company. If you thought that should be easy- the customer support person will now have to contact another department to ensure you don't pay shipping charges.

You receive a standardized email about this conversation with customer support which miscategorizes the request and are requested to call another number.

When you call the next number, you have to explain the situation from scratch. You are now beginning to get frustrated. You want to talk to a supervisor regarding the quality of support you have received. You are put on hold and the call drops.

You call back the next day, and explain the process from scratch. You are finally advised that The Consumer Electronics Company will pay the charges for shipping back the incorrect cord sent to you. You demand to speak with someone who can take some action to alleviate the misery of going through this process. You believe you should also be refunded the shipping charges for the cord you bought yourself, because, it was, after all, customer support’s fault that you lost out on the promotion.

You are transferred to customer relations, where you explain the situation from scratch. Again. You mention that any customer who goes through this process will talk, even blog about it, and create a lot of negative publicity for the firm. Customer relations responds that they can do nothing more that pay the shipping charges for receiving the incorrect cord.

You are transferred back to customer support, where someone commiserates. You mention that you want action not commiseration. The whole process so far does not make sense from your point of view. Customer support agrees.

You go to FedEx and ship the cord incorrectly sent to you. Shipping is free. You receive the new cord for $30. $20 is credited to your account in a few days.

You are left wondering that you are a consumer of a $450 product and The Consumer Electronics Company put you through a lot of hassle for a $20 accessory.

The process seems un-American and un-East Asian to you. What are the things you would like this company do, in its own interest?


--