Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

What precedes an Emerging Business Opportunity?

I had done some briefings for a client in western Canada, and the client executive asked if I would be interested in coaching one of their senior executives on some case studies. The client has retained an independent consultant specializing in executive development, and that consultant had suggested that the board work their way through some Harvard Business School cases, namely Emerging Business Opportunities at IBM (A), Emerging Business Opportunities at IBM (B) and Emerging Business Opportunities at IBM (C): Pervasive Computing. This key executive that I was to coach was to prepare himself to act as a resource to the board members. Our preparatory teleconference ended up with some discussions on organization culture, deeper than I would have anticipated.

The cases describe an IBM study in 2003 that recognized difficulties in starting up new businesses in six root causes:

  1. Our management system rewards execution directed at short-term results and does not place enough value on strategic business building.
  2. We are preoccupied with our current served markets and existing offerings.
  3. Our business model emphasizes sustained profit and earnings per share improvement rather than actions to drive higher P/Es.
  4. Our approach to gathering and using market insights is inadequate for embryonic markets.
  5. We lack established disciplines for selecting, experimenting, funding and terminating new growth businesses.
  6. Once selected, many IBM ventures fail in execution.1

A book that captured many of the issues, The Alchemy of Growth2, decribes the company’s business portfolio in three horizons, based on their stages of development:

  • Horizon 1 (H1) businesses were mature and well established and accounted for the bulk of profit and cash flow.
  • Horizon 2 (H2) businesses were on the rise and experiencing rapid, accelerating growth.
  • Horizon 3 (H3) businesses were emerging and still developing and were the seeds of the company’s future.3

In 2000, Gerstner promoted John Thompson to vice-chairman, to lead the effort. The case describes the challenges of centralization to generate H3 businesses, and then the issues associated with transitioning from H3 to H2.

In our teleconference, the question of how an initiative became an H3 business was discussed. At the point at which a business is declared as H3, it’s so visible that failure really isn’t an option. This may be compared to the spirit of the First-of-a-Kind (FoaK) projects that have been in place for a decade. (The Seiad project was one of the earlier FoaKs in 1997).

The FoaK is the culmination of a number of things, though. It requires IBM Research, as a division to be on board. It requires one of the Sales & Distribution industry solutions unit (e.g. financial services sector, retail and distribution, public sector, etc.) on board. It requires someone who will take on the assets (e.g. Software Group) once the FoaK is complete. But, most importantly, it requires a customer to sign on, and actively be involved during the development of a new technology. The idea of the FoaK is “easy start, easy kill”, so not all FoaK projects will make it through to the end. This should be seen as a normal result of experimentation, and if all FoaK projects were to be successful, it would be easy to criticize the program for setting the bar too high.

The importance of the customer is a key cultural differentiator that is ingrained at IBM. The essential premise in a FoaK is that an industry solutions unit will be interested in rolling out the resulting solution to all of its customers. To kick the FoaK process off, however, the minimum requirement is one interested customer. If a team wants to do something “innovative”, but can’t find a single customer that will spend some time in early development of the technology or service, it’s not likely to gain traction and get off the ground.

The idea of identifying a single customer became the focal point for our discussion on innovation. This successful business in Western Canada had made some bad investments in the past, has now recovered and turned itself around, and doesn’t want to make the same mistakes it had, previously. The key idea from the case study discussion is centered around getting external parties involved. If you can’t get a single customer excited about your innovation, you’re unlikely to get a whole industry excited.


1David A. Garvin and Lynne C. Levesque, “Emerging Business Opportunities at IBM (A)“, Harvard Business School Case 9-304-075 (revision Feburary 28, 2005), pp. 3-4.

2Mehrdad Baghai, Stephen Coley and David White, The Alchemy of Growth, Perseus Press, 1999. Previews of the book are available at Questia.

3Garvin & Levesque, p.4.

1 Comment

  • “The key idea from the case study discussion is centered around getting external parties involved. If you can’t get a single customer excited about your innovation, you’re unlikely to get a whole industry excited.”

    This couldn’t be anymore true ! I also think one has to believe in the product themselves. I have been in sales most of my life and I don’t I always most successful in selling the products I believe in personally. Either because I have bought or would like to buy it, or I know it is comparitively better than the competition at least in some ways.

    I find it interesting that HP were unable to see the business opportunity in the PC market when I watched the movie based on Bill Gates’ and Steve Jobs life . early days. The scene of them at HP with their monstrous “Personal Computer” idea and the HP executive looking at them as if to say “are you crazy ? What’s this ?”. After HP weren’t interested then that HP employee (forget his name) was off the hook and was able to sell his invention.

    It’s also interesting how Bill Gates didn’t sell the MSDOS software to IBM but only licensed it – genious ! I don’t think IBM saw the potential in the software business.

    I recommend the movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley”, interesting to see the rise of Apple and Microsoft. 2 people who saw Business Opportunities that others missed


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Goal, objective, ideal, pursuits (Ackoff & Emery, 1972)
      While Ackoff’s definitions of goals, objectives and ideals have been republished (and rewritten) multiple times, the 1972 definitions were derived from his original dissertation work.  Accordingly, in addition to the human-readable definitions, some mathematical notation is introduced. — begin paste — OUTCOMES 2.30. End (an immediate intended outcome) of a subject A in a particular […]
    • Pure Inquiring Systems: Antiteleology | The Design of Inquiring Systems | C. West Churchman | 1971
      The fifth way of knowing, as described by West Churchman, is a Singerian inquiring system. (This fifth way of knowing is more colloquially called Unbounded Systems Thinking in Mitroff and Linstone (1993)). The book On Purposeful Systems (Ackoff and Emery, 1972) was derived by Ackoff’s dissertation that was controversially coauthored with West Churchman. Purpose can […]
    • Process-Function Ecology, Wicked Problems, Ecological Evolution | Vasishth | Spanda J | 2015
      Understanding Process-Function Ecology by Ashwani Vasishth leads to luminaries in the systems sciences, including C. West Churchman, Eugene P. Odum and Timothy F.H. Allen.
    • The Innovation Delusion | Lee Vinsel, Andrew L. Russell | 2020
      As an irony, the 2020 book, The Innovation Delusion by #LeeVinsel @STS_News + #AndrewLRussell @RussellProf shouldn’t be seen as an innovation, but an encouragement to join @The_Maintainers where an ongoing thought network can continue. The subtitle “How Our Obsession with the New has Disrupted the Work That Matters Most” recognizes actual innovation, as distinct from […]
    • Republishing on Facebook as “good for the world” or “bad for the world” (NY Times, 2020/11/24)
      An online social network reproduces content partially based on algorithms, and partially based on the judgements made by human beings. Either may be viewed as positive or negative. > The trade-offs came into focus this month [November 2020], when Facebook engineers and data scientists posted the results of a series of experiments called “P(Bad for […]
    • 1969, 1981 Emery, System Thinking: Selected Readings
      Social Systems Science graduate students in 1970s-1980s with #RussellAckoff, #EricTrist + #HasanOzbehkhan at U. Pennsylvania Wharton School were assigned the Penguin paperback #SystemsThinking reader edited by #FredEEmery, with updated editions evolving contents.
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

  • RSS on Media Queue

  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal