Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Brian S. Silverman
J.R.S. Prichard and Ann Wilson Chair in Management
Rotman School of Management
University of Toronto
January 17, 2013
silverman@rotman.utoronto.ca
Today
!!
!!
!!
Why?
!!
Smart
Logical
Rational
Practical
Fair-minded
Proud of their work
!!
Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door
!!
Two problems
1. He never said it.
2. The research doesnt support it.
!!
!!
Mousetrap innovation
!!
!!
!!
Rearming Electronic Animal Trap with Infrared Sensor and Multiple Killing-Plate Configuration
A high-voltage output
circuit is connected to killing
plates which are activated
with a high-voltage pulse
train when a pest interrupts
the infrared beam signal
10
11
Successful development of a
technology-based venture rests on three foundations
Markets
Value Creation
Technologies
Organizational Competitive
Capability
Understanding
12
Markets
Do we have the
organizational
capabilities
necessary to
deliver it?
The business
model is the
logic by which
you answer these
questions
Can we capture
this value in the
face of
competition?
13
Do we have the
organizational
capabilities
necessary to
deliver it?
Can we capture
this value in the
face of
competition?
The business
model is the
logic by which
you answer these
questions
WTP
Mfg
WTP
WTP
idea
Sales
cost
2000 Brian S. Silverman, Harvard Business School
14
cost
cost
!!
!!
!!
Go-to-Market plan
! at what level of profit can we attract customers, given likely competitive
responses?
15
!!
!!
!!
!!
Aside: Why do entrepreneurs often overestimate the benefits that customers see in
their product/service? Lets go to the research
16
So how can you identify what buyers value and how much they value it?
One rule of thumb and four tools for thinking about buyer value
!
!!
Rule of thumb:
! Allocentrism
!!
Tools:
! Value curves
! Scenarios
! Economic valuation
! Surveys/focus groups
WTP
Mfg
WTP
WTP
idea
Sales
cost
2000 Brian S. Silverman, Harvard Business School
17
cost
cost
!!
!!
Examples
! Bloomberg
! User-generated innovations (tennis rackets; medical devices, etc.)
!!
18
High
Starbucks
Coffee shop
Low
Price
Quality
Selection
Personalization
19
Ambience
Lounging
Status
High
F1
2 Star
Relative
Level
1 Star
Low
20
High
HP, IBM,
Compaq
Relative
Level
Dell
Low
21
22
Tool: Scenarios
23
Toy example:
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
Buyer must pay $1.3 million plus $45,000/year to get same output from rival
machine as from Silverman machine (in present value, roughly $1.5MM)
" SILVERMAN INJECTION MOLDING CO. IS NOT CHARGING ENOUGH!
* Name of firm has been changed
24
!!
It is possible to find out how potential buyers are likely to respond to your
invention through surveys and focus groups
!!
Key:
! Ask right questions
! Listen
! Gain input from competent market researchers
!!
Approaches:
! Qualitative
! Quantitative (i.e., conjoint analysis)
25
!!
!!
!!
26
!!
Rule of thumb:
! Allocentrism
!!
Tools:
! Value net
! Appropriability/complementary assets framework
WTP
Mfg
WTP
WTP
idea
Sales
cost
2000 Brian S. Silverman, Harvard Business School
27
cost
cost
Tool: Value Net (to make choices about how to access assets/activities)
Partnership
potential of
suppliers
Collaboration
with existing/
potential
competitors
Focal firm
Partnership
potential of
buyers
28
Collaboration
with
complementors
Tool: Value Net (to make choices about how to access assets/activities)
Partnership
potential of
suppliers
Customer
co-creation
at
Volkswagen
Collaboration
with existing/
potential
competitors
Focal firm
Partnership
potential of
buyers
29
Collaboration
with
complementors
Tool: Value Net (to make choices about how to access assets/activities)
Partnership
potential of
suppliers
Virtual
telecom at
Bharti Airtel
Collaboration
with existing/
potential
competitors
Focal firm
Partnership
potential of
buyers
30
Collaboration
with
complementors
Partnership
potential of
suppliers
Dell direct
business
model
Collaboration
with existing/
potential
competitors
Focal firm
Bypassing of
immediate
buyers
Collaboration
with ultimate
buyers
2000 Brian S. Silverman, Harvard Business School
31
Collaboration
with
complementors
HP, IBM,
Compaq
Relative
Level
Dell
Low
Mfg
Partnership
potential of
suppliers
idea
Collaboration
with existing/
potential
competitors
Partnership
potential of
buyers
Sales
2000 Brian S. Silverman, Harvard Business School
Focal firm
32
Collaboratio
n with
complement
ors
[Teece 1986]
How to organize?
Tight
Innovator
Tightly held
Freely available
Divided b/w
Innovator and
Complementary
Asset Owner
Appropriability
Regime
Loose
Complementary Assets
Tight
Appropriability
Regime
???
Access
complementary Partner with
Complementary
assets via
Asset Owner
open market
Diversify;
Access
complementary
Loose
assets via
open market
Complementary
Asset Owner
33
Tightly held
!!
!!
Sales
cost
2000 Brian S. Silverman, Harvard Business School
34
cost
cost
One rule of thumb and two tools for thinking about this
!
!!
Rule of thumb:
! Allocentrism
!!
Tools:
! Resource assessment (VRIO)
! Competitor analysis
35
Rare?
Inimitable?
Organized
properly?
Just-in-time
production
capability
Supplier
relationships
On-line ordering
capability
Strong
innovation skills
36
Economic motivations
Psychological motivations
Procedural cues
Behavioral cues
Enter
NutraSweet
Holland
Sweetener
Corporation
Accommodate
Stay out
37
38
A good business model will (probably have to) evolve over time
39
Additional resources
Brandenburger, Adam & Barry Nalebuff, 1996, Co-opetition, New York: Doubleday Press.
Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Joan Ricart, 2011, How to Design a Winning Business Model,
Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb.
Ghemawat, Pankaj & Jan Rivkin, 1998, Creating Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business School
Note #798-062.
Kim, W. Chan & Renee Maubourgne, 2005, Blue Ocean Strategy, Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Lal, Rajiv, and Sean Lanagan. Documentum, Inc. Harvard Business School case #502-026, 2002.
Moore, Geoffrey, 2002, Crossing the Chasm, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Porter, Michael, 1996, What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb.
Teece, David, 1986, Profiting from Technological Innovation, Research Policy 15: 285-305.
40