If you've spent any time in the business section of your local bookstore, you've surely noticed a lot of contradictory titles.
Is it true that "Only the Paranoid Survive"? Or will you succeed by "Delivering Happiness"?
Do you need "Born Entrepreneurs, Born Leaders" to build a great company -- or do you believe "Talent is Overrated"?
Should you commit to "First, Break all the Rules" or "The Discipline of Market Leaders"?
Thomas Thurston says choosing the right path isn't a matter of which approach you prefer -- it's a matter of applying empirical research that reveals which business strategies succeed, and which fail.
A former research fellow at Harvard Business School, and onetime venture capitalist at Intel Corp., Thurston now helms his own consulting firm, Growth Science International LLC. His services are based on research he's done with Clayton Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School. Christensen's well-known book, "The Innovator's Dilemma," outlines his concept of disruptive innovation.
Thurston offered a workshop June 3 for OEN members, where he presented an overview of his research and gave participants the opportunity to apply his findings to example cases. Though Thurston's examples were all of proposed new businesses within a $500 million company, his research findings can be just as easily applied to startups.
The research started with 48 businesses that Intel had invested in over about a decade. Thurston applied Christensen's disruptive innovation model to see whether he could predict accurately which of these startups would succeed and which would fail. At the time he launched his project, Thurston didn't actually know the fate of any of the 48 startups.
He found that prediction became highly accurate -- 85 percent, by his own reckoning -- when three simple factors are taken into account:
- * Is the new business "sustaining" -- that is, a higher-performing version of an existing product or service? Or is it a disruptive product? A disruptive product can either be a low-end, low-cost version of an existing product (that gets improved in later iterations), or it can be something that opens up an entirely new market.
- * Is the company entering the new business an incumbent in that industry, or is it a new entrant?
- * Does the company have a sufficient degree of autonomy?
In a nutshell, an incumbent company is likely to succeed if it introduces an improved, better-performing version of the product it's already selling. A new entrant trying to introduce an improved version of an existing product "will almost always fail," Thurston said during the June 3 workshop.
That's because established companies in the industry will focus their resources on competing with the new entrant, mustering all the power and influence they have with customers, suppliers and distributors.
"You force those companies to one of two strategies: buy you or kill you," Thurston said.
While an acquisition may be exactly what the entrepreneur had in mind, it's not always a good exit. Often the established company will compete hard enough to bleed the upstart dry, and then pick up what's left for pennies on each invested dollar.
What about companies introducing disruptive products? Well, as it turns out, the decisive factor there is whether the company has enough autonomy. A company that's not stifled by a fearful parent company or overbearing investors can try ideas out, one after the next, failing quickly and moving on to the next idea. Its managers aren't inhibited by having to justify every move they make -- they can glean lessons from each failure and apply them to the next product iteration.
This strategy has created some notable successes. As Thurston pointed out, most great companies start with a low-end, disruptive product, and incrementally improve it as they grow. Toyota, for example, introduced its Corona in the 1950s -- a sub-$2,000 car that Ford, GM and Chrysler scorned for its cheapness and low quality. But the car appealed to people who could never afford an American-built car, and so Toyota opened up what was essentially a new market, turning walkers and bus-takers into new car owners.
And the cycle repeats itself. Today, Toyota is seriously challenged by Kia and Hyundai, who in their turn will probably be challenged by Indian car maker Tata, with its $2,500 Nano, or Chinese car makers.
Thurston's idea is itself disruptive.
"One question I get a lot is, 'What about the team?'" he said. "Even with the best team and the best execution, if you have the wrong strategy, your survival chances are very low. Without the right strategy, it doesn't matter how good the team is."
It's strong medicine, but perhaps one that every entrepreneur -- and every investor -- should take.