This is cross-post from the class message board.
Looking at the two products in the Timberland case one thing that struck
me was the juxtaposition of Travel Gear with Precise Fit. The former
was a completely revolutionary idea that could have changed the very
notion of footwear consumption and the latter was a simple insert to
make shoes fit better. As prospective entrepreneurs I think we all have
at least a slight inclination towards the big disruption, the
revolution. In our first lecture we were already informed that "me too"
business plans are a tough sell so innovation is imperative and
disruptive innovation seems even more desirable, which begs the
question, how much disruption is disruptive?
Focusing on the
disruptive aspects of the two products it is clear that they were both
disruptive to varying degrees with distinctly different "disruptees".
Travel Gear was monumentally disruptive to pretty much everyone
involved, customers would be disrupted because an entirely new way to
consume footwear was being introduced, competition was disrupted because
they would have to adapt to a radically different landscape, and
internal stakeholders were disrupted because they had to make, pack, and
market this footwear revolution. This product was a nuclear warhead of
disruption, and much to its detriment, it was engineered in isolation,
which only exacerbated its disruptive qualities. Compare this with
Precise Fit, which really only "disrupts" the competition who must now
adapt and combat Timberland's improved customer experience. The overall
process for the consumer was enhanced, not altered fundamentally. The
overall process for the internal stakeholders was far less disruptive
thanks to input and a more democratic R&D process on this invention.
Precise Fit was the kind of disruption that harkened back to the
original silicone impregnated leather boots from Timberland's origin.
The only disrupted players in the game were competition who had to catch
up, the customers got a better experience and the internal stakeholders
were involved early and as a result the company flourished.
This
provides a valuable lesson to start up plans. Applied disruption (or
"creative destruction", as mentioned in class, e.g. Precise Fit) leads
to differentiation, market acceptance, and ultimate success while
catastrophic disruption (e.g. Travel Gear) leads to confusion, market
rejection, and ultimate failure. Extrapolating from the case study it
appears that a key way to ensure that disruption is productive instead
of destructive is to remain customer centric. Travel Gear tried to solve
a customer problem (traveling footwear) that suffered from two flaws,
one it was a problem that most people probably did not even know they
had, and two it added at least one problem (confusion). Trying to answer
an unasked question in a potentially vexing way is not
customer-centric, and a lack of customer-centrism probably condemned
Travel Gear to the scrap heap. Precise Fit sought to solve a very
pervasive problem, that I am sure many people have. By focusing on a
real and pervasive external customer problem (people who buy shoes) and
internal customer problem (internal stakeholders who have to implement)
the iF team was able to disrupt its antagonists (competition) without
disrupting those who drive the success the most (customers and
colleagues). So if we, as future disrupting agents, also apply precise
disruption when we seek to get our ideas off the ground, we too should
have similar success.
So let's all strive to disrupt in an orderly fashion.
