Category Archives: Innovation

Philips’ Alliances Will Save Your Health (and Money)

We all know that alliances with customers, competitors, and suppliers are important to any company’s ability to compete. As I write in my latest post for Harvard Business Review, that ability is compromised by the way we manage those relationships: all too often, each alliance is “owned” by one team or business unit. Thus, companies often miss out on opportunities for innovation that would result from transferring ideas and resources from small silos to other aspects of the business.

I set out in my book, Network Advantage: How to Unlock Value from Your Alliances and Partnerships, that a more holistic approach to managing alliances allows companies to create innovative new lines of business. A recent collaboration between customer relationship management and analytics company Salesforce.com and Dutch electronics giant Philips provides a case in point.

The collaboration between two companies began as a simple buyer-supplier deal: Philips used Salesforce software to enhance its customer relationships. But somewhere along the line, executives in these two companies started asking: if Salesforce knows how to manage CRM data, can it also manage the clinical data from some 190 million medical patients that are treated each year with Philips-made equipment?

The two partners have decided to build a platform to connect healthcare providers, insurance companies, and patients to deliver clinical monitoring solutions. The Philips Digital Healthsuite Platform, as it is called, will collect and analyze data drawn from medical devices to enhance clinical decision making by professionals and allow patients to take a more active role in managing their personal health.

As a first move, the partners have created two applications — “eCareCompanion” and “eCareCoordinator.” The eCareCompanion is installed on a patient’s smartphone (or tablet) and connects to their health monitoring equipment, such as weight scales, pill dispenser units, blood oxygen measurement devices, and thermometers. Imagine John, a patient with obstructive pulmonary disease, often caused by smoking. John lives at home. To monitor his condition, John’s weight, blood oxygen, and body temperature data are constantly uploaded to the platform. The eCareCoordinator then analyzes the data feed from the devices worn by the patients. If the data pattern from a particular patient becomes worrisome, the eCareCoordinator can inform a nurse, relative, or doctor.

How can Philips and Salesforce persuade hospitals to start using this platform? How can the hospitals be sure the system is reliable and can lead to tangible cost savings? This is where an alliance between Philips and Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands comes into play. The two partners work very closely to develop and test new equipment, including the wearable devices that can collect patent data for the Digital Healthsuite Platform. The use of these devices on Radboud’s patients helps Philips develop a business case for using them in other hospitals. Furthermore, in the process of building the wearable devices, developing the apps, and analyzing patient data, Philips, Salesforce.com, and Radboud develop valuable know-how to share with future partners who want to build their own apps or devices.

This innovation was made possible by the way Philips manages its alliances. Philips has created an Alliance Management office, made up of a small team of professionals who help Philips executives run individual alliances. The team helped negotiate the contracts with Salesforce and with Radboud Medical Center, obtained agreement on the key performance indicators, and developed tools to evaluate the partners’ perspectives on the evolution of the alliance. They also manage regular meetings in which the Philips executives in charge of the Salesforce.com alliance can learn about what is going on in the alliance with Radboud and vice versa. This helps build multi-billion market opportunities across the three partnerships.

There are two lessons here for your company. First, get more out of your alliances as drivers by thinking of them as a network. And second, build a team inside your company to manage this network, especially where knowledge and resources overlap. There is huge potential in collaborating with customers, suppliers, or even competitors.

When to Partner and When to Acquire: Louis Vuitton Style

A few weeks ago, I was fortunate to sit down with Yves Carcelle, a former CEO of Louis Vuitton. He is a humble man with penetrating brown eyes. An INSEAD MBA, he is credited with transforming Louis Vuitton (LV) from an old trunk maker into a luxury powerhouse throughout his 23- year long tenure as CEO. Now he is a self-declared “fixer” for the top management team and Vice President of the LVMH Foundation. His own modest handyman-like image is in stark contrast to the venerable leader he is considered both inside and outside of LVMH.

When he became CEO in the early nineties, he knew that LV had grown very quickly across the world without having all the management resources it needed to maintain global leadership positions. This meant that LV had to form alliances with distributors in most of the countries it operated in. These distributors played an active role in the company’s business operations.

Yet, 100% reliance on global business partners was not Carcelle’s philosophy. One of his earliest initiatives at LV was to take control of 100 percent of the distribution of LV’s products in almost all geographies. “With 100 percent distribution, you can have a good database…every morning you see the sales product-by-product, store-by-store, clientele-by-clientele all over the world,” he told me in a recent interview.

Partnerships and alliances are valuable drivers of competitive advantage, but if everyone in your industry relies on partnerships, there might be opportunities for achieving competitive advantage in a different way, i.e. when you integrate everything under one roof.  Carcelle was willing to go against the grain, and now he remains surprised that no other luxury brand considered such a move. Even now most of LV’s competitors have a lot of distribution partnerships worldwide.

But why did LV decide to go against the industry’s majority opinion? During the 1990s, business revolved around the concept of outsourcing and many luxury goods companies moved many of their operations overseas. Carcelle argues that LV’s key source of competitive advantage was its know-how of product making. Success doesn’t always come from “manufacturing everything yourself, but from understanding and controlling the know-how and having your experts in-house,” he explains.

Does vertical integration always make sense?

Over time, LV bought out all of its partners, but there was one exception. “The only partners I decided to keep were our partners in the Middle East.  This was not only because their values were the same as ours. Friendship and value-sharing is not enough. [A big reason for keeping them was that] the Middle East is complicated, legally and culturally,” he said.

As I explain in the new book Network Advantage: How to Unlock Value From Your Alliances and Partnerships, LV decided to stick with a Middle Eastern partner – Chalhoub Group. As Yves Carcelle commented, “Decision-makers [in the Middle East] speak Arabic and I decided it was important for us to continue to work with partners that opened doors, be our advisers and we were the first one to organise a joint venture for the whole Middle East market”. However, to still ensure as much consistency across regions as possible, LV decided to work with Chalhoub Group across several Middle Eastern markets, and not to try and find a separate partner for each country.

The lesson from Yves Carcelle’s experience is clear. The more unique your assets are and the greater the control you need to exercise over the value chain to extract competitive advantage from these assets, the more vertical integration makes sense. However, the higher the uncertainty and complexity in your markets, the more you should think about partnerships. LV’s key assets were a unique brand and long term experience in luxury goods. By vertically integrating, LV has ensured a highly consistent image all around the world. If you face a situation when you have unique assets, control over the value chain helps you extract value from them. Yet when you are dealing with complex and uncertain markets, then you need to find a single partner with expertise in most of these markets.

You can watch this clip for more insights on networks, innovation and creativity from Yves Carcelle–  one of the most experienced executives in the world of luxury goods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OrkXqYxQo



Can Your Alliance Network Lift a Stealth Bomber Off the Ground?

Does this airplane look familiar?
1940s Stealth Bomber Image
Source: Wikipedia
As I recently wrote on Harvard Business Review blog network, it should, because it’s a predecessor of the famous Stealth Bomber, a prototype completed by Jack Northrop’s company in 1948. In his time, Northrop — the inventor of the flying wing concept — was considered to be the aerospace genius, but he was not able to deliver on his promise to the U.S. military. The revolutionary airplane you never got beyond the prototype.
In 1980, Jack Northrop, then age 85 and confined to a wheelchair, visited a secure facility to see the first B-2 Stealth Bomber — the most advanced military aircraft capable of flying at extremely high altitudes and avoiding radar detection.
1980s Stealth Bomber Image
Source: Wikipedia
Even after 40 years of technological development and use of sophisticated computer design tools, the new bomber looked like a replica of Northrop’s original design for the flying wing. Reportedly, after seeing the aircraft, Northrop said he now realized why God had kept him alive for so long.
So why did one model fail and the other succeed?  Part of the explanation can be found by comparing the different networks of alliances that Northrop’s company formed in the forties and in the seventies.
In 1941, his alliance network looked small and simple hub-and-spoke system. Otis Elevators worked on design, General Manufacturing and Convair provided production facilities. Notice that the partners don’t work with one another and the U.S. Army Corps was actually brought in to arbitrate a dispute between Northrop and Convair.
Northrup's Alliance Network, 1940s
In 1980, the alliance network was more complex and highly integrated.  Network partners worked with one another, jointly negotiating technical standards. Vought Aircraft designed and manufactured the intermediate sections of the wings, General Electric manufactured the engine, whereas Boeing handled fuel systems, weapons delivery and landing gear.   In addition, each main partner formed individual ties with other subcontractors specific to their areas of responsibility.
Northrup's Alliance Network, 1970s
As we discuss in our new book “Network Advantage”, networks like this have two main benefits.  First, alliance partners are more likely to deliver on their promises.  If information flows freely among interconnected partners, how one firm treats a partner can be easily seen by other partners to whom both firms are connected. So if one firm bilks a partner, other partners will see that and will not collaborate with the bilking firm again.
Second, integrated networks facilitate fine-grained information exchanges because multiple partners have relationships where they share a common knowledge base. This shared expertise allows them to dive deep into solving complex problems related to executing or implementing a project.
This is not to say that the hub-and-spoke network of the 1940s doesn’t have its uses. In fact, they are usually more effective at coming up with radical innovation than are complex, integrated networks. In a hub-and-spoke configuration it’s more likely that your partners will know stuff you don’t already know and combining new, distinct ideas from multiple spokes leads to breakthrough innovations for the hub firm.
But Northrop’s hub and spoke portfolio was not useful in 1940s, because he already had an innovative blueprint for the bomber. All Northrop needed to do was to build reliable manufacturing systems that would execute his ideas based on incremental improvements made by multiple partners at the same time.  That scenario called for the integrated network of the 1970s.
The key to choosing between the two types of network is to ask: do you already have a final idea that needs to be implemented with incremental improvements? Is it important that all of your partners trust each other and share knowledge in implementing your idea? If so, then the integrated alliance portfolio is right for you. If you are exploring different options and it is not critical that your partners trust one another, work together to develop and/or implement them, then the hub and spoke portfolio is the best.
You can read more about this and other network-related stories in my new book “Network Advantage: How to Unlock Value from Your Alliances and Partnerships”

Samsung Beats Blackberry in the Global Alliance Game

To the investors of Research in Motion (RIM), the maker of Blackberry, the recent years have been really disappointing. It lost the fight to Apple and Samsung. There may be several explanations to this failure, but one which particularly stands out is the failure of RIM to build a strong alliance network. Alliances and partnerships are the sources of “network advantage”–the ability to improve operating efficiency and increase product innovation by combining resources and knowledge with partners. We discuss how companies can benefit from their relationships with customers, competitors and suppliers in a new e-book “Network Advantage: How to Unlock Value From Your Alliances and Partnerships”. The print version of the book is available from January, 2014.

Let’s look at the alliance network of RIM. This picture is built by looking at the RIM’s alliance announcements between 2008 and 2011. Since these alliances happened a while ago, their positive or negative effects should be felt by now.

RIM is the firm at the centre of the picture and it has 4 (four!) alliance partners only. The alliance with the Royal Bank of Canada and Thompson Reuters (Woodbridge is its parent company) provided venture capital fund services to invest in mobile applications and services in Canada. The alliance with TiVo aimed at providing mobile television entertainment services for BlackBerry users globally. The alliance with NII Holdings Inc was to provide Blackberry Smartphone services in Latin America.


Did these alliances make sense? They sure did. But network advantage doesn’t come to firms who simply build alliances, it comes to firms who build better (and more) alliances than competition. 
Let’s compare RIM’s alliance network to what Samsung is doing with its alliances. Below is the picture of Samsung’s alliance network based on the announcements between 2008 and 2011:

Samsung works with Kia motors to build the car around its Galaxy tab, manufactures 4 G communication infrastructure in Russia, collaborates with Telstra to develop Internet TV for mobile devices, works with Nanosys to build better screens and batteries for smartphones using the nanotechnology. It works with Intel and Juniper on mobile security solutions and works with Korean Telecom (plus Intel) to transmit 3D signal through the mobile grid. It works with Dreamworks and Technicolor (Thompson) to develop 3D movies and viewing equipment. We might soon have 3D video enabled mobile phones!!!… Not to mention the fact that Samsung uses apps from Android platform for its phones. 
In short, the alliance network of Samsung allows it more (and cheaper) opportunities to innovate not only in hardware but also in content.
The sad story of RIM did not begin this year. It began several years ago when it failed to build a big enough network of alliances and partnerships to counter the network of Samsung (and of course the network of Apple). Samsung has excelled at the global alliance game and extracted its Network Advantage. Kudos to Samsung and condolences to RIM. May your company not repeat the RIM’s mistakes!

How to make your company more creative? Hire a senior executive who worked abroad.

Creativity is an important driver of competitive advantage for companies. One way your company can be more creative is to hire executives who worked abroad. These people are likely to offer non traditional solutions to your problems.

I recently did a study with Frederic Godart, Will Maddux and Adam Galinsky. We looked at how foreign working experience of fashion designers affected creativity of their collections. We found that fashion critics and buyers were more likely to view a designer’s fashion collection as creative, if this designer worked (or is currently working) abroad.

Apparently, working outside of your home country changes the way you think: by looking at how different people in different cultures solve problems differently, your brain learns to think about how to approach any business problem differently. If a problem is solved in France in one way, perhaps the Italians solve it in a different way. And you can perhaps think of the third way to solve the same problem–by combining the French and the Italian approach. Karl Lagerfeld is even reputed to work in Italy and France during the same day!

Working abroad also shapes your personal network. If you work in one country and then go work to another country, you become a bridge between professional communities in both countries. For example, a fashion designer who works in France gets to know other French designers and when she moves to work to Japan, she can get to know Japanese designers. If she still stays in touch with her French friends, she will know what is going on in French fashion world while she is working in Japan. And this knowledge will help her combine French and Japanese fashion influences in the future collections. Our study shows that such collections are seen as being very creative.

So, next time you are looking for a senior executive to fill a job that requires creativity and ability to innovate, look up their Linked-In profile. Does it indicate that the person worked in several different countries? If so, she or he is worth looking at, as this person is likely to be indeed creative.

Innovation Networks: a la Google or a la Apple?

A recent article in International Herald Tribune entitled “Yin and Yang of corporate creativity” describes two approaches to innovation, one of Apple and another of Google. The Google approach is a bottom up, open innovation which is based on rapid experimentation and receiving quick customer feedback. The Apple model is more top down model where the company achieves close to perfect integration of different elements in the product and then pushes it down to customers (remember a now famous comment from Jobs: it’s not the consumers’ job to know what they want).

This dichotomy is very much relevant to the issues of managing innovation networks in an organization or across organizations. Such network can consist of individual collaborators (if this is an inter-personal network) or partner companies (if this is an inter-organizational network). Google’s approach is similar to a network where the central member in a network relies on the peripheral members for insights into the environmental dynamics and then works with them to find a solution to the environment’s needs and then constantly make small adjustments to the resulting product.
Apple’s approach is similar to a network where the central member controls the network and imposes its views on the peripheral members. In such network, innovation occurs in discrete steps with major adjustments embedded in different generation products.
Which network is better for generating innovation? The answer is that it depends on the environment these networks are facing. If success in a given environment depends on coordination of very different elements (e.g. hardware and software) or connecting ideas from very different domains (e.g. music and technology), then top down model of network management a la Apple makes a lot of sense. If success in an environment is based on coordination of similar elements (e.g. only hardware or only software) or ideas from similar domains (e.g. technology only) then the model a la Google makes more sense. Ideally, of course, innovation networks should probably combine two approaches- top down and bottom up- it seems to me that this was the Microsoft’s approach in the 1990s.