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)

    • daviding: Instead of using a t July 4, 2020
      Instead of using a text editor or Notepad on my computer for everyday work, I now use #Zettlr as a persistent scratchpad, a new page each day. The feature of creating #Markdown often helps in copy-and-paste to other applications. I haven't exercised #Zotero citations, yet, but probably will, shortly. > Roam let’s you manage knowledge, […]
    • daviding: The #GlobeAndMail ed June 29, 2020
      The #GlobeAndMail editorial declares that the brain drain of 15,000 Canadians to the United States between years 2000-2010 could be reversed, with corporations near-shoring northwards. > Canada already exerts a powerful pull on people from the rest of the world. A global Gallup survey, conducted from 2015 through 2017, shows Canada is one of the most […]
    • daviding: Consumer grade audio June 20, 2020
      Consumer grade audio and video recording devices are practically near professional broadcast quality. Post-production workflows have adjusted to becoming asynchronous for the daily late night television shows. https://www.theverge.com/21288117/late-night-seth-meyers-tech-gadgets-show-home-ipad-microphone
    • daviding: Authentically apprec June 10, 2020
      Authentically appreciating "causal texture" from the Emery and Trist (1965) article leads us through the meanings of contextualism and contextural, texture, causal, and transactional environment c.f. contextual environment. http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/causal-texture-contextural-contextualism/ #systemsthinking
    • daviding: Racial bias in AI mo June 9, 2020
      Racial bias in AI models now sees IBM ethically prioritizing social responsibility ahead of technological capability. We can, but should we? Are responses on Twitter indicative of Silicon Valley morality? https://twitter.com/TechCrunch/status/1270159828980248584
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Wholism, reductionism (Francois, 2004)
      Proponents of #SystemsThinking often espouse holism to counter over-emphasis on reductionism. Reading some definitions from an encyclopedia positions one in the context of the other (François 2004).
    • It matters (word use)
      Saying “it doesn’t matter” or “it matters” is a common expression in everyday English. For scholarly work, I want to “keep using that word“, while ensuring it means what I want it to mean. The Oxford English Dictionary (third edition, March 2001) has three entries for “matter”. The first two entries for a noun. The […]
    • Systemic Change, Systematic Change, Systems Change (Reynolds, 2011)
      It's been challenging to find sources that specifically define two-word phrases -- i.e. "systemic change", "systematic change", "systems change" -- as opposed to loosely inferring reductively from one-word definitions in recombination. MartinReynolds @OpenUniversity clarifies uses of the phrases, with a critical eye into motives for choosing a specific label, as well as associated risks and […]
    • Environmental c.f. ecological (Francois, 2004; Allen, Giampietro Little 2003)
      The term "environmental" can be mixed up with "ecological", when the meanings are different. We can look at the encyclopedia definitions (François 2004), and then compare the two in terms of applied science (i.e. engineering with (#TimothyFHAllen @MarioGiampietro and #AmandaMLittle, 2003).
    • Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language: Analysing, Mapping and Classifying the Critical Response | Dawes and Ostwald | 2017
      While many outside of the field of architecture like the #ChristopherAlexander #PatternLanguage approach, it's not so well accepted by his peers. A summary of criticisms by #MichaelJDawes and #MichaelJOstwald @UNSWBuiltEnv is helpful in appreciating when the use of pattern language might be appropriate or not appropriate.
    • Field (system definitions, 2004, plus social)
      Systems thinking should include not only thinking about the system, but also its environment. Using the term "field" as the system of interest plus its influences leaves a lot of the world uncovered. From the multiple definitions in the International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics , there is variety of ways of understanding "field".
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2020/06 Moments June 2020
      Most of month in Covid-19 shutdown Phase 1, so every photograph is an exterior shot. Bicycling around downtown Toronto, often exercising after sunset.
    • 2020/05 Moments May 2020
      Life at home is much the same with the pandemic sheltering-in-place directives, touring city streets on bicycle, avoiding the parks on weekends.
    • 2020/04 Moments April 2020
      Living in social isolation in our house with 5 family members, finishing off teaching courses and taking courses.
    • 2020/03 Moments March 2020
      The month started with a hectic coincidence of events as both a teacher and student at two universities, abruptly shifting to low gear with government directives for social distancing.
    • 2020/02 Moments February 2020
      Winter has discouraged enjoying the outside, so more occasions for friend and family inside.
    • 2020/01 Moments January 2020
      Back to school, teaching and learning at 2 universities.
  • 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