“The business world is littered with the fossils of companies that failed to evolve. Disrupt or be disrupted. There is no middle ground.”
“Disruption causes vast sums of money to flow from existing businesses and business models to new entrants.”
— Jay Samit, Disrupt You! Master Personal Transformation, Seize Opportunity, and Thrive in the Era of Endless Innovation
Innovation project management can create products and services that have the potential of producing long-term business value. The way the organization delivers and captures the desired value for economic gain is through the company's business model, which interacts within the marketplace to take advantage of a commercial opportunity. Simply stated, innovation creates value opportunities and business models deliver and capture the value generally in economic terms. Business model development focuses on how a firm intends to maximize the usage of its resources and core competencies.
In theory and practice, the term business model is used for a broad range of informal and formal descriptions to represent core aspects of a business, including purpose, business process, target customers, offerings, strategies, infrastructure, organizational structures, sourcing, trading practices, and operational processes and policies including culture. The process of business model construction is part of business strategy and includes innovation project management processes. Business models are used to describe and classify businesses, especially in an entrepreneurial setting, but they are also used by managers inside companies to explore possibilities for future development and to increase competitiveness.
Business model development is most frequently a trial-and-error process. Business models must be reassessed frequently due to rapidly changing markets and a high degree of uncertainty.
Traditional or rational project management is viewed as a structured environment with well-defined requirements at project initiation and constraints on time, cost, and scope. Innovation for new products and services is often considered as work that is free flow, without boundaries, and with very little pressure from the triple constraints of time, cost, and scope. However, this does not mean that innovation projects run forever. All projects have an end, and it may be difficult to identify this end on an innovation project. Is it when all funds have been expended, a critical date has arrived, technology has changed, the customers' tastes or expectations of value have changed, etc.?
Historically, the words project management and innovation were not used in the same sentence. If they were used together, it would most likely be for technical innovation in a Department of Defense (DOD) contract to create new products and services based on advanced levels of technology. But even then, innovation was limited because of statement of work requirements that excluded out-of-scope work, thus limiting out-of-the-box thinking needed due to project complexity and uncertainty. Improvements in traditional project management focused on adding in more control, rather than increasing the flexibility of the methodology needed for projects such as innovation.
For business model innovation, project managers may find themselves in a completely unfamiliar environment. As examples:
Mainstream literature on project management would have us believe that we can equate projects and innovation, and that the principles of project management can be applied to all types of innovation projects. Lenfle (2008) argues that a distinction should be made between the various types of projects where project management practices are well-suited. Lenfle's arguments certainly have merit.
In traditional project management, most projects are somewhat confined and have limitations imposed by the business case, the statement of work, the assumptions, and the constraints. There may be some degree of risk and uncertainty, and this can be managed according to the risk management processes in the PMBOK® Guide.* Traditional project management practices may be appropriate for some innovation projects, such as incremental product or services innovation that focus on existing or modified technology. But as we get into the more complex types of innovation that may lead to a radically new or disruptive marketplace, such as with new platforms, the number of unknowns and the accompanying risks and uncertainty may not be handled effectively using traditional project management practices.
Another critical issue is that when companies change business models, the way they handled risk management previously may not work as well in the new business model. Boeing's 787 project had a completely different set of risks than Boeing's 777 project.
The project environment gets even worse when companies try to use traditional project management for business processes such as business model innovation where you have the greatest degree of risk and uncertainty, where traditional risk management planning will not work and where a great deal of flexibility is needed for decision making. Different project management approaches, many requiring a high level of flexibility, will be differentiated by the level of technology, the amount of product versus product changes, and whether the impact is expected to disrupt the markets.
Business model innovation requires that the project manager assume the lead role as the designer of the model. According to Van Der Pilj et al. (2016, 9):
Design is fundamentally about enhancing the way you look at the world. It's a learnable, repeatable, disciplined process that everyone can use to create unique and qualified value. Design is not about throwing away the processes and tools you have. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Just as design has enabled countless upstarts to create new business models and markets, design will also help you decide when to use what tools in order to learn something new, persuade others to take a different course, and at the end of the day, make better (business) decisions.
Most of all, design is about creating the conditions by which businesses thrive, grow and evolve in the face of uncertainty and change. As such, better businesses are ones that approach problems in a new, systematic way, focusing more on doing rather than on planning and prediction. Better businesses marry design and strategy to harness opportunity in order to drive growth and change in a world that is uncertain and unpredictable.
The skills needed for the design effort requires imagination and experimentation and testing of a variety of models to identify the best approach. As stated by Kaplan (2012, 142–143):
As a Business Model Designer, you will design for change by:
- Leading and contributing to ethnographic fieldwork to generate powerful customer experience observations and insights
- Leading and contributing to design teams through analysis and synthesis of ethnographic work to distill the most important insights leading to transformational business model concepts
- Developing testable business model concepts and prototypes
- Leading and contributing to real-world business model experiments
- Creating and implementing frameworks to measure results and impact of business model experiments
- Crafting and executing compelling multimedia stories that help stakeholders understand and connect with the work
- Capturing and packaging learning from business model experiments to inform other efforts and ensure maximum leverage
Business models are often treated as value networks. Innovations can take place in processes within the business model to bring added value in each network step. Included in the business model can be the relationships/partnerships and contractual agreements with the suppliers and buyers. The relationship with the suppliers and buyers can be highly advantageous and bring long-term business value to all parties if each party has similar business value drivers such that the business relationship is mutually beneficial to all. In such situations, it becomes important when evaluating potential business partners to make sure that there are similar interpretations of business value so that the business models of each party are complementary. Effective design and enhancements to a business model can give a company a sustainable competitive advantage.
Value is like beauty; it is in the eyes of the beholder. Highly diversified companies may need different business models for whom they are creating value. Typically, customer segments can be classified as mass markets, niche markets, segmented markets and diversified markets. Each market segment may require a different business model, and each company within the segment may have a different interpretation of the value being provided through your business models.
“Organizations are not designed for innovation. Quite the contrary, they are designed for ongoing operations.”
— Vijay Govindarajan, The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge
Every company has a unique business model based on their core competencies and technologies they use. However, there are some generic commonalities between business models. Business model design, as described by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), includes the modeling and description of a company's:
Osterwalder refers to these nine items as the business model canvas, which outlines your business model in the shape of a story to describe how you create, deliver and capture value. IPMs should not assume that the project team understands the company's business model. By preparing a business model canvas, it is easier to understand the business model attributes.
If you have direct competitors that appear to have a good business model, it may be beneficial to create a business model canvas for their business and see their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This may provide you with ideas about your new business model.
It is unrealistic to expect companies to own all the resources needed to remain competitive. Companies view strategic partnerships as a way of building competitive business models. Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010, 38) identify four types of partnerships:
There are several benefits in these relationships. The partners either employ or have access to resources that are critical to your business model. The partners can help reduce risk and uncertainty as well assisting you in identifying and responding to threats. You may be able to access new market segments through the business models of your strategic partners.
In traditional project management activities, project managers are accustomed to working with suppliers and partners for the procurement of materials and components. Quite often, these activities are handled through a contract administrator. With IPM activities, the burden of responsibility falls on the IPM who must interface with the partner's business personnel and make business rather than technical decisions. This mandates an understanding of your own business model as well as those of your strategic partners.
Business intelligence is information that a company needs to make the best business decisions based on facts and evidence rather than just guesses. This information may be stored in a database or data warehouse. Business intelligence technologies provide historical, current, and predictive views of business operations. Common functions of business intelligence technologies include reporting, online analytical processing, analytics, data mining, process mining, complex event processing, business performance management, benchmarking, text mining, predictive analytics, and prescriptive analytics.
Business intelligence can be used by enterprises to support a wide range of business decisions, from operational to strategic. Basic operating decisions include product positioning or pricing. Strategic business decisions involve priorities, goals, and directions at the broadest level.
Business intelligence tools allow organizations to gain insight into new markets, to assess demand and suitability of products and services for different market segments and to gauge the impact of marketing efforts. This can result in a competitive market advantage and long-term stability. Business intelligence can identify the following:
Historically, project managers came out of the engineering ranks, and many of them had advanced degrees in a technical discipline. These individuals were strong technically but often had a poor understanding of how the business functions. Business-related decisions were usually placed in the hands of the project sponsors or governance committees.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for IPMs to be involved with business modeling without business knowledge. Some companies, IBM as an example, are encouraging their project managers to become certified by PMI® and to become internally certified by IBM. IBM's internal certification program focuses on IBM's business practices. Companies are now following IBM's lead because almost every project management methodology, whether flexible or inflexible, contains business processes. Some companies believe that project managers of the future will possess significantly more business knowledge than technical knowledge. The argument provided is that a company can always hire a multitude of highly technical people to assist in project decision making, but making effective project-related business decisions, especially for IPMs, may require a strong understanding of the business model and business operations.
For more than five decades we have attempted to define the core skills that project managers should possess. All of this was done while thinking about the traditional project management approach and the traditional types of projects. For innovation projects, there are additional skills needed. Van Der Pilj et al. (2016; 12–13) list the following (and explain them in detail in their book):
Developing the right skills implies that you also have the right tools. Van Der Pilj et al. (2016, 265) identify 20 tools that innovation project managers need as part of business model design activities:
The traditional tools that are identified in the PMBOK® Guide may no longer be appropriate by themselves but may have value in combination with other tools such as these 20 tools.
In traditional project management, the project manager may rely on the business case for the identification of the assumptions. Some project managers may mistakenly believe that the assumptions remain constant for the duration of the project, regardless of the length of the project.
Today, project managers are tracking the assumptions over the full life cycle of the project. For business model design, even small changes in the assumptions regarding consumer behavior, consumer expectations of value, and activities of your competitors can lead to major changes in the design of a business model. Metrics, such as shown in Figure 8-1, can be used to track the assumptions.
Kaplan (2012, 52–53) identifies 15 fundamental principles that define the DNA of business model innovators:
Kaplan (2012, 136–137) also identifies 10 behavioral characteristics he uses to recognize someone as a potential innovator:
Companies invest a great deal of time and effort for innovation for products and services. Unfortunately, considerably less effort is applied to the firm's business model until a threat appears. As stated by Jim Collins (2009, 5):
I've come to see institutional decline like a staged disease: harder to detect but easier to cure in the early stages, easier to detect but harder to cure in the later stages. An institution can look strong on the outside but already be sick on the inside, dangerously on the cusp of a precipitous fall.
Most firms are relatively slow in identifying threats and even when they see them, there is often a complacency attitude and a slow response time in deciding whether enhancements are needed to the existing business model or if a totally new model is needed. The competition between most companies today is between business models, not with the products and services provided (Gassmann et al., 2013). Products and services can be duplicated whereas business models are usually unique to a firm because they tap into the firm's specialized strengths.
Several factors can act as triggers indicating that the business model processes must be reevaluated:
Lüttgens and Diener (2016) looked at the threats to a business model using Porter's five forces that describe the competitive forces within an industry. Porter defined the five factors as the bargaining power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, competitive rivalry, threats of new entrants, and threats of substitutes. Changes in these five forces can be used as early warning signs or triggers that there are threats to the business model.
In traditional project management, where companies adopt an enterprise project management methodology, the project managers assigned to the PMO perform process improvements on the methodology and monitor the enterprise environmental factors as outlined in the PMBOK® Guide. For business model process improvement, the assigned project manager must have a line of sight to senior management, and especially marketing personnel, to monitor the enterprise environmental factors that can impact the business models. The innovations necessary to make changes to a business model and its accompanying processes must be fast and can be more complex than product or service innovations.
The purpose of a business model is to create business value in a profitable manner. Therefore, enhancements must focus on the processes associated with the five dimensions of value (Baden-Fuller and Morgan 2010; Beinhocker 2007; and Abdelkafi et al. 2013):
The result of process innovations can be either added value or cost reductions.
Core competencies are the building blocks for many forms of business value and serve as the basis for the firm's competitive posture. The core competencies are the combination of the firm's resources, knowledge, and skills, as shown in Figure 8-2, that create core products for the end users. These core products contribute to the competitiveness of the firm by accessing a wide variety of markets and making it difficult for competitors to imitate your products and the accompanying value perceived by the customers. Management must look for ways of improving the core competencies to create new products and new markets.
In the 1950s, new business models came from McDonald's restaurants and Toyota. In the 1960s, the innovators were Wal-Mart and hypermarkets. The 1970s saw new business models from FedEx and Toys “R “Us; the 1980s from Blockbuster, Home Depot, Intel, and Dell Computer; the 1990s from Southwest Airlines, Netflix, eBay, Amazon.com, and Starbucks.
Today, the types of business models might depend on how technology is used. For example, entrepreneurs on the Internet have created new models that depend entirely on existing or emergent technology. Using technology, businesses can reach many customers with minimal costs.
The following examples provide an overview for various business model types that have been in discussion since the invention of term business model:
Other examples of business models are:
Companies frequently develop close relationships and strategic alliances with companies that are part of the supply chain during innovation activities such as new product development. The result is usually a win–win situation for all parties with the expectation that these relationships will continue for some time into the future. If a new incremental innovation is necessary, the impact on the relationships is usually minor. But if the company is focusing on a disruptive innovation that will result in a new business model, the relationships with the supply chain suppliers can be destroyed if the suppliers believe that the new business model will provide them with fewer benefits than before. As such, the suppliers may not wish to provide support for the disruptive innovation or new business model development if they believe it is not in their best interest.
When a company seeks to disrupt a market by introducing a new product, or responding to disruptions caused by a competitor, the company may need to replace its core competencies with new ones and likewise develop other supply chain relationships. If the company's core competencies are rigid and the company depends heavily on the core competencies of their suppliers, the company may wish to reconsider innovation activities that could result in a new business model that would destroy existing relationships. Characteristics of strategic alliances, adapted from Spekman et al. (2000) include:
Most business model designs are impacted by partnerships and alliances in the supply chain. Therefore, any decision to alter a business model without considering the impact on supply chain relationships might be a mistake.
There is an old adage that experienced project managers often follow; hope for the best but plan for the worst. The failure of a business model can have catastrophic consequences for a company. When developing a business model, innovators must always ask themselves, what can go wrong? Simply stated, the company must perform risk management and determine the threats to their business model. Sometimes, the threats are not apparent during the development stage. Periodically, companies must therefore reassess all possible threats in time to react appropriately.
There is no standard approach for assessing business model threats. One way to assess threats is by using Porter's five forces, namely (1) entry barriers, (2) exit barriers, (3) bargaining power of suppliers, (4) bargaining power of buyers, and (5) substitute products. As an example, some companies are highly dependent on suppliers for components and materials. We should then assess the threat of what could happen if the supplier is late, refuses to work with us, want to increase their prices and other such situations.
Another way is to continuously look for triggers or early warning indicators that can lead to discontinuities in the performance of a business model. Examples are shown in Table 8-1.
TABLE 8–1. EXAMPLES OF DISCONTINUITIES AND THEIR TRIGGERS
Adapted from W. Phillips, R. Lamming, J. Bessant, and H. Noke (2006). Discontinuous innovation and supply relationships: strategic dalliances, R&D Management, 36 (4), 453.
Triggers/Sources of Discontinuity | Explanation | Problems Posed | Examples of Good and Bad Experiences |
New market emerges | Conventional market research/analytical techniques fail to detect new market. | Established players focused on their existing markets and disregard the threat. | Market that actually emerged was not the one expected or predicted by originators |
New technology emerges | Step change occurs either through convergence of several streams or through a single breakthrough. | Occurs beyond periphery of the selection environment. Involves a completely new field or approach. | Ice harvesting to cold storage; valves to solid-state electronics and photos to digital images |
New political rules emerge | Political conditions shift dramatically. | Rules of the game, etc. are challenged and established firms fail to understand or learn new rules. | Post-apartheid South Africa and free trade/globalization |
Running out of road | There is diminishing space for product and process innovation. | Current system is embedded in a trajectory and subject to steady-state innovation. | Kodak and Encyclopedia Britannica |
Sea change in market sentiment or behavior | Public opinion or behavior shifts slowly and then tips over. | Cognitive dissonance. | Apple, Napster, Dell, Microsoft vs. traditional music industry |
Deregulation/ shifts in regulatory regime | Political and market pressures lead to shifts in the regulatory framework, resulting in new rules—e.g., liberalization, privatization or deregulation. | New rules of the game but old mindsets persist and existing player is unable to move fast enough or see new opportunities opened up. | Old monopolies dismantled and new players and/or /combinations of enterprises emerge |
Unthinkable events | Unforeseen events change the world, establishing new rules of the game. | Existing players disempowered/ competencies rendered unnecessary. | 9/11 |
Business model Innovations by competitors | New entrant challenges established business models, redefining the problem and, hence, the “rules of the game.” | New entrants see a product/service opportunity via a new business model, existing players have to be fast followers. | Amazon.com, Charles Schwab, Southwest and other low-cost airlines |
Senior management must have a vision on how they want the company to compete, now and in the future. This information must be provided to the IPMs responsible for creating or enhancing a business model. Most executives understand that they must compete through business models rather than just products and services, but they lack an understanding of how to do it. The result is usually a doomed business model.
Kaplan (2012, 40–49) identifies 10 reasons and attitudes that cause companies to fail at business model innovation:
There are seven common mistakes made by senior management:
When we think about lawsuits involving innovation, we normally consider patent infringement regarding products and technology. Unfortunately, there can also be lawsuits on how a firm decides to implement its business model and its relationships with its clients. The success or failure of most firms is based on how they respond to competition and the strength of the competition. Companies can create superior products and services that give them a competitive advantage and still incur regulatory and litigation issues in the way that it implements its business model. As an example, consider the following regulatory and litigation issues that Intel was faced with.1.
In October 2006, a lawsuit was filed by Transmeta Corporation against Intel for patent infringement on computer architecture and power efficiency technologies. The lawsuit was settled in October 2007, with Intel agreeing to pay US$150 million initially and US$20 million per year for the next five years. Both companies agreed to drop lawsuits against each other, while Intel was granted a perpetual nonexclusive license to use current and future patented Transmeta technologies in its chips for 10 years.
In September 2005, Intel filed a response to a lawsuit by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), disputing AMD's claims, and claiming that Intel's business practices are fair and lawful. In a rebuttal, Intel deconstructed AMD's offensive strategy and argued that AMD struggled largely as a result of its own bad business decisions, including underinvestment in essential manufacturing capacity and excessive reliance on contracting out chip foundries. Legal analysts predicted the lawsuit would drag on for a number of years since Intel's initial response indicated its unwillingness to settle with AMD. In 2008 a court date was finally set, but in 2009, Intel settled with a $1.25 billion payout to AMD.
On November 4, 2009, New York's attorney general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp., claiming the company used “illegal threats and collusion” to dominate the market for computer microprocessors.
On November 12, 2009, AMD agreed to drop the antitrust lawsuit against Intel in exchange for $1.25 billion. A joint press release published by the two chip makers stated, “While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.”
In 2005, the local Fair Trade Commission found that Intel violated the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The commission ordered Intel to eliminate discounts that had discriminated against AMD. To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the order.
In July 2007, the European Commission accused Intel of anti-competitive practices, mostly against AMD. The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers buying most or all of their chips from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and providing chips at below standard cost to governments and educational institutions. Intel responded that the allegations were unfounded and instead qualified its market behavior as consumer-friendly. General counsel Bruce Sewell responded that the Commission had misunderstood some factual assumptions as to pricing and manufacturing costs.
In February 2008, Intel stated that its office in Munich had been raided by European Union regulators. Intel reported that it was cooperating with investigators. Intel faced a fine of up to 10 percent of its annual revenue, if found guilty of stifling competition. AMD subsequently launched a website promoting these allegations. In June 2008, the EU filed new charges against Intel. In May 2009, the EU found that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and subsequently fined Intel €1.06 billion (US$1.44 billion), a record amount. Intel was found to have paid companies, including Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and NEC, to exclusively use Intel chips in their products, and therefore harmed other companies including AMD. The European Commission said that Intel had deliberately acted to keep competitors out of the computer chip market and in doing so had made a “serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules.” In addition to the fine, Intel was ordered by the Commission to immediately cease all illegal practices. Intel has stated that they will appeal against the Commission's verdict. In June 2014, the General Court, which sits below the European Court of Justice, rejected the appeal.
In September 2007, South Korean regulators accused Intel of breaking antitrust law. The investigation began in February 2006, when officials raided Intel's South Korean offices. The company risked a penalty of up to 3 percent of its annual sales, if found guilty. In June 2008, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Intel to pay a fine of US$25.5 million for taking advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers on the condition of not buying products from AMD.
New York started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors. In June 2008, the Federal Trade Commission also began an antitrust investigation of the case. In December 2009, the FTC announced it would initiate an administrative proceeding against Intel in September 2010.
In November 2009, following a two-year investigation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Intel, accusing the company of bribery and coercion, claiming that Intel bribed computer makers to buy more of their chips than those of their rivals, and threatened to withdraw these payments if the computer makers were perceived as working too closely with its competitors. Intel has denied these claims.
On July 22, 2010, Dell agreed to a settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pay $100M in penalties resulting from charges that Dell did not accurately disclose accounting information to investors. In particular, the SEC charged that from 2002 to 2006, Dell had an agreement with Intel to receive rebates in exchange for not using chips manufactured by AMD. These substantial rebates were not disclosed to investors but were used to help meet investor expectations regarding the company's financial performance; “These exclusivity payments grew from 10 percent of Dell's operating income in FY 2003 to 38 percent in FY 2006 and peaked at 76 percent in the first quarter of FY 2007.” Dell eventually did adopt AMD as a secondary supplier in 2006, and Intel subsequently stopped their rebates, causing Dell's financial performance to fall.
Project managers have traditionally managed innovation activities related to products and services. But now, as project managers get more actively involved in process innovation activities, they need to understand the most important process innovation, the company's business model. Some of the critical issues and challenges that may be new for some project managers include understanding the following: