Book: Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice
Quotes of Book: Competing Against Luck: The
On the surface, the Mayo Clinic is organized around the specialties of the doctors, like many other health organizations. But really, the main organizing principle is a process to get the right things in the right sequence to get the job done. When you think of the word "process" you might instantly conjure images of a manufacturing assembly line or a bureaucratic standard. But processes touch everything about the way an organization transforms its resources into value: the patterns of interaction, coordination, communication, and decision making through which they accomplish these transformations are processes. Product development, procurement, market research, budgeting, employee development and compensation, and resource allocation are all accomplished through processes. Helping customers have a delightful experience using your product is made up of processes. What information do we need to have in order to decide what to do next? Who is responsible for each step? What do we prioritize over other things? book-quoteSo Medtronic adjusted not only its marketing efforts, but also the services it provided to directly target potential patients. For example, in conjunction with local cardiologists, Medtronic organized heart-health screening clinics across the country-providing prospective patients with free, direct access to specialists and high-tech equipment without having to go through an overwhelmed GP first. The question of paying for a pacemaker and the attendant medical services was no small concern. So Medtronic created a loan program to help patients pay for the pacemaker procedure. The company initially assumed that patients might be drawn to loans that actually expired upon the patient's death, so that they were not saddling the family with the burden of debt-the emotional and social component of their Job to Be Done. And, as the Medtronic team learned from patients themselves, that was what they often wanted. But friends and family wanted something different: they tended to rally around a patient to find the money necessary. In those cases, the patient was more likely simply to need a bridge loan until those funds could be gathered. Medtronic made sure that the loan process was not daunting for the family: a loan is typically approved within two days, requiring minimum paperwork and entailing no asset mortgage. The experience of navigating the complex web of health care in India could be overwhelming for both patients and their families. So the company began to work with local hospitals to create a patient counselor role, initially calling them "Sherpas," that helped patients navigate the often mind-boggling bureaucracy of a hospital, keeping their procedure and aftercare as top priorities. The patient counselor role became so popular that hospitals asked if the company would allow patients obtaining pacemakers through traditional routes to seek assistance from a counselor, too. Seeing an opportunity to further identify Jobs to Be Done from within the hospital system, Medtronic jumped at the chance. "At the end of the day, we realized the role was such an important position, we adjusted the role. And we were OK with it," Monson recalls. "It ingrained the value of that person into the entire hospital system, and thus our business model. And it made us the partner of choice. To me that was a clear example of hitting a Job to Be Done." The first Medtronic pacemaker distributed through the Healthy Heart for All {HHFA} program in India was implanted in late 2010. Medtronic currently has partnerships with more than one hundred hospitals in thirty cities. India is considered to be one of the most high-potential growth markets for the company. book-quoteother. As Nate Silver, author of The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-But Some Don't, points out, "ice cream sales and forest fires are correlated because both occur more often in the summer heat. But there is no causation; you don't light a patch of the Montana brush on fire when you buy a pint of Häagen-Dazs." Of course, it's no surprise that correlation isn't the same as causality. But although most organizations know that, I don't think they act as if there is a difference. They're comfortable with correlation. It allows managers to sleep at night. But correlation does not reveal the one thing that matters most in innovation-the causality behind why I might purchase a particular solution. Yet few innovators frame their primary challenge around the discovery of a cause. Instead, they focus on how they can make their products better, more profitable, or differentiated from the competition. As W. Edwards Deming, the father of the quality movement that transformed manufacturing, once said: "If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing." After decades of watching great companies fail over and over again, I've come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a better question to ask: What job did you hire that product to do? For me, this is a neat idea. When we buy a product, we essentially "hire" something to get a job done. If it does the job well, when we are confronted with the same job, we hire that same product again. And if the product does a crummy job, we "fire" it and look around for something else we might hire to solve the problem. Every day stuff happens to us. Jobs arise in our lives that we need to get done. Some jobs are little {" pass the time while waiting in line"}, some are big {" find a more fulfilling career"}. Some surface unpredictably {" dress for an out-of-town business meeting after the airline lost my suitcase"}, some regularly {" pack a healthy, tasty lunch for my daughter to take to school"}. Other times we know they're coming. When we realize we have a job to do, we reach out and pull something into our lives to get the job done. I might, for example, choose to buy the New York Times because I have a job to fill my time while waiting for a doctor's appointment and I don't want to read the boring magazines available in the lobby. Or perhaps because I'm a basketball fan and it's March Madness time. It's only when a job arises in my life that the Times can solve for me that I'll choose to hire the paper to do it. Or perhaps I have it delivered to my door so that my neighbors think I'm informed-and nothing about their ZIP code or median household income will tell the Times that either. book-quoteCorrelation is enough," 2 then-Wired editor in chief Chris Anderson famously declared in 2008. We can, he implied, solve innovation problems by the sheer brute force of the data deluge. Ever since Michael Lewis chronicled the Oakland A's unlikely success in Moneyball {who knew on-base percentage was a better indicator of offensive success than batting averages?}, organizations have been trying to find the Moneyball equivalent of customer data that will lead to innovation success. Yet few have. Innovation processes in many companies are structured and disciplined, and the talent applying them is highly skilled. There are careful stage-gates, rapid iterations, and checks and balances built into most organizations' innovation processes. Risks are carefully calculated and mitigated. Principles like six-sigma have pervaded innovation process design so we now have precise measurements and strict requirements for new products to meet at each stage of their development. From the outside, it looks like companies have mastered an awfully precise, scientific process. But for most of them, innovation is still painfully hit or miss. And worst of all, all this activity gives the illusion of progress, without actually causing it. Companies are spending exponentially more to achieve only modest incremental innovations while completely missing the mark on the breakthrough innovations critical to long-term, sustainable growth. As Yogi Berra famously observed: "We're lost, but we're making good time!" What's gone so wrong? Here is the fundamental problem: the masses and masses of data that companies accumulate are not organized in a way that enables them to reliably predict which ideas will succeed. Instead the data is along the lines of "this customer looks like that one," "this product has similar performance attributes as that one," and "these people behaved the same way in the past," or "68 percent of customers say they prefer version A over version B." None of that data, however, actually tells you why customers make the choices that they do. book-quoteAs long as Toyota is continually identifying "anomalies" in the manufacturing process, every single defect is seen as an opportunity to make the process better. There are, in effect, a set of rules that ensure that this happens. For example, an employee must never add value to a part until it is ready to be used in the next step of adding value. It must be done in the same way, every time. That way managers know, definitely, that the value-adding step worked with the next step in the process. That creates an environment of repeated scientific experimentation. Each time it's done the same way constitutes a test of whether doing it that way, to those specifications, will result in perfection every time. For Toyota, the theory was embodied in the set of processes they developed to lead to defect-free manufacturing. Each activity can be seen as an individual if-then statement: "If we do this, then that will be the result." Through this theory of manufacturing, the quality movement was born. As a consequence, the Americans took what they'd learned from their Japanese competitors to heart and the US automobile industry today churns out very reliable cars. Innovation, in a very real sense, exists in a "pre–quality revolution" state. 1 Managers accept flaws, missteps, and failure as an inevitable part of the process of innovation. They have become so accustomed to putting Band-Aids on their uneven innovation success that too often they give no real thought to what's causing it in the first place. book-quoteTo understand how revolutionary Pasteur's contributions were, consider the previously popular ideas that attempted to explain why people got sick. For nearly two thousand years, the medical profession believed that four different bodily fluids-blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile-dominated the health and moods of people. When they were in harmony, all was right with the world. When they were out of sync, people fell ill or into "bad humor." The theory was known as humorism. Doctors were never quite certain what caused imbalance among these humors-ideas ranged from seasons to diet to evil spirits. So they experimented by trial and error to restore the necessary harmony of fluids-often with now seemingly barbaric methods such as bloodletting, which at the time was said to remedy hundreds of diseases. Sometimes, people got better. But most of the time, they got worse. And doctors were never sure why. By the nineteenth century, people began to blame disease on "miasmas" or "bad airs" that floated around dangerously. As hare-brained as it sounds today, "miasma theory" was actually an improvement over humorism because it spawned sanitary reforms that had the effect of removing real disease agents-bacteria. For example, in 1854, when cholera gripped London, the miasma explanation inspired massive, state-sponsored clearing of the air by draining cesspools. A physician of the time, John Snow, was able to isolate the pattern of new cholera cases and to conclude that new cases correlated to proximity to a specific water pump on Broad Street. Disease, he concluded, correlated with that pump-and therefore cholera was not transmitted through miasma, but likely through contaminated water. Snow's work saved countless lives-and he has subsequently been recognized as one of the most important physicians in history. But while an improvement, Snow's analysis still didn't get to the root cause of what actually made those people sick. book-quoteWhat are they really trying to accomplish and why isn't what they're doing now working? What is causing their desire for something new? One simple way to think about these questions is through storyboarding. Talk to consumers as if you're capturing their struggle in order to storyboard it later. Pixar has this down to a science: as you piece together your customers' struggle, you can literally sketch out their story: Once upon a time . . . Every day . . . One day . . . Because of that, we did this . . . Because of this, we did that . . . Finally I did . . . You're building their story, because through that you can begin to understand how the competing forces and context of the job play out for them. Airbnb's founders clearly understood this. Before launching, the company meticulously identified and then storyboarded forty-five different emotional moments for Airbnb hosts {people willing to rent out their spare room or entire home} and guests. Together, those storyboards almost make up a minidocumentary of the jobs people are hiring Airbnb to do. "When you storyboard something, the more realistic it is, the more decisions you have to make," CEO Brian Chesky told Fast Company. "Are these hosts men or women? Are they young, are they old? Where do they live? The city or the countryside? Why are they hosting? Are they nervous? It's not that they {the guests} show up to the house. They show up to the house, how many bags do they have? How are they feeling? Are they tired? At that point you start designing for stuff for a very particular use case. book-quote
