Many Western multinationals expect to find most of their future growth in emerging economies. But they have frequently struggled to exploit the opportunity, relentlessly cutting costs and accepting profit margins close to zero. The problem, say the authors, who are all with the innovation consultancy Innosight, is not that these companies can't create viable offerings but that simply transplanting their domestic business models to the new markets won't work. They must devise fundamentally new models-by identifying an important unmet job consumers need to do; performing that job profitably at a price the customer will pay; and carefully implementing and evolving the model by constantly testing assumptions and making adjustments. Drawing on their experience investing in, incubating, and consulting for companies that have created 20 new business models in developing markets, the authors describe the vast potential demand represented by the "middle market" in emerging economies-the millions of people who have the desire and wherewithal to pay for goods and services, from refrigeration to clothes washing to money transfers, that will help them do the "jobs" no current offering adequately can.
Billions of dollars worldwide are pumped into the search for clean technology and renewable energy. So far, however, most investment has been in companies that are using conventional business models to fit new technologies into existing systems. A far better approach, say Johnson and Suskewicz, is to create whole new systems. The authors propose a framework for thinking about clean tech that consists of four interdependent components: an enabling technology, an innovative business model, a careful market-adoption strategy, and a favorable government policy. Two recent experiments show how this framework can be applied: Better Place, founded by the software executive Shai Agassi, has a network of battery-recharging and -switching stations to support its electric cars and a business model based on selling electricity (miles) rather than vehicles. It has a foothold market in Israel, where gas-powered cars are taxed far higher than electric ones. Masdar City, now under construction in Abu Dhabi, will be a carbon-neutral incubator of clean technologies, supported by the investment, manufacturing, strategy, and academic units of a government initiative. The city is itself a foothold market and will benefit from government subsidies, "free zone" status, and favorable regulations. Both enterprises provide hope for supplanting the oilbased economy.
Why is it so difficult for established companies to pull off the new growth that business model innovation can bring? Here's why: They don't understand their current business model well enough to know if it would suit a new opportunity or hinder it, and they don't know how to build a new model when they need it. Drawing on their vast knowledge of disruptive innovation and experience in helping established companies capture game-changing opportunities, consultant Johnson, Harvard Business School professor Christensen, and SAP co-CEO Kagermann set out the tools that executives need to do both. Successful companies already operate according to a business model that can be broken down into four elements: a customer value proposition that fulfills an important job for the customer in a better way than competitors' offerings do; a profit formula that lays out how the company makes money delivering the value proposition; and the key resources and key processes needed to deliver that proposition. Game-changing opportunities deliver radically new customer value propositions: They fulfill a job to be done in a dramatically better way (as P&G did with its Swiffer mops), solve a problem that's never been solved before (as Apple did with its iPod and iTunes electronic entertainment delivery system), or serve an entirely unaddressed customer base (as Tata Motors is doing with its Nano-the $2,500 car aimed at Indian families who use scooters to get around). Capitalizing on such opportunities doesn't always require a new business model: P&G, for instance, didn't need a new one to leverage its product innovation strengths to develop the Swiffer. A new model is often needed, however, to leverage a new technology (as in Apple's case); is generally required when the opportunity addresses an entirely new group of customers (as with the Nano); and is surely in order when an established company needs to fend off a successful disruptor (as the Nano's competitors may now need to do).
This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Many companies proudly think of themselves as innovative. The great majority of them, however, are adept at producing only sustaining innovations--products or services that meet the demands of existing customers in established markets. Few companies have introduced genuinely disruptive innovations, the kind that result in the creation of entirely new markets and business models. And, yet, the motivation to pursue such innovations should be urgent. In almost any industry, the most dramatic stories of growth and success were launched from a platform of disruptive innovation. Clayton M. Christensen of Harvard Business School, Mark W. Johnson of Innosight in Woburn, Massachusetts, and Darrell K. Rigby of Bain & Co. are close observers of innovation successes and failures at large and small companies. Drawing on a decade's worth of research, they offer two sets of litmus tests that senior managers can use to shape business plans to improve their chances of success. Following a detailed exploration of the litmus tests, they try out their ideas in a hypothetical example that asks whether Xerox could disrupt Hewlett-Packard's ink-jet printer business. They conclude by outlining the process any company needs to institute if it wants to create an engine capable of building new disruptive businesses over and over again. If senior managers pursue the path outlined here--and if the growth businesses they start or acquire are truly disruptive in character--it will be less difficult and risky than many have supposed to create wave after wave of new corporate growth.