OVERVIEW Business model innovation is often the key to capturing .docx

OVERVIEW: Business model innovation is often the key to
capturing value from innovation within corporations.
Developing and implementing new business models in practice,
however, is difficult and fraught with risk. This paper discusses
a systematic approach to developing new business models and
identifies concrete steps to reduce the risks associated with
them. It draws on literature on elements of the process as well
as experience developing and implementing new business
models at Goodyear.
FEATURE ARTICLE
A systematic approach to business model innovation can help
capture value and reduce risks
KEYWORDS: Business model innovation; Adoption risks; Co-
innovation risks; Business model canvas
Business model innovation has gained increased attention over
the last five years, driven in large part by the tremendous
returns generated by companies that have developed new
business models--Netflix, Dell, and the Apple iTunes store are
the most frequently noted examples. The term itself, however,
has been only vaguely defined. Keeley and coauthors (2013),
for example, characterize business model innovation by the
number of attributes of a business that are changed, while
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) define a business model in
terms of a completed canvas. The vagueness of these
representations makes it hard to study (or even to discuss) the
process of developing a successful business model to harvest
value from innovation.
The concept of the business model is actually simple: the
business model is the means by which a firm creates and
sustains margins or growth. The business model, defined in this
way, is inherently embedded in a firm's competitive
environment: the ability to create margins and growth is
dependent on what competitors are doing to create margins and
growth for themselves. The business model is not simply the

means by which a firm creates and captures customer value.
Focusing on creating customer value without regard to
competitive advantage will leave a firm vulnerable to both
margin erosion and anemic growth. Because the competitive
environment is forever changing, business models require
constant vigilance; they must be adapted and strengthened over
time as the competitive environment evolves.
Business model innovation, in this context, is any innovation
that creates a new market or disrupts the competitive advantage
of key competitors. Business model innovation is confused in
many discussions with building new capabilities (for instance, a
new channel). This may or may not be business model
innovation: while business model innovation may require new
capabilities, new capabilities will constitute business model
innovation only when they significantly disrupt the competitive
dynamics of an industry. A few common examples of business
model innovation make this distinction clear:
* Dell: Dell disrupted the cost structure of the personal
computer industry with its build-to-order model by eliminating
the costs of retail outlets, which radically reduced working
capital, enabled customization of orders, and (riding Moore's
law) assured that its products had newer and cheaper
components than competitors' offerings.
* Netflix: Netflix's mail-order DVD rental model disrupted the
cost structure of Blockbuster Video (which had previously
disrupted the cost structure of its smaller rivals). Netflix
eliminated retail outlets and used some of the savings to create
a pricing structure that eliminated late fees. It continued to
build on its advantages by optimizing both its infrastructure and
its recommendation engine.
In this paper, we are particularly concerned with developing
business models to capture value from innovation inside a
corporation. Successful innovation inside corporations requires
not only developing an appropriate business model, but also
sustaining that model in an environment that can be resistant to
change. In a study of the innovations developed at Xerox PARC

in the 1970s and 80s, for example, Chesbrough (2006) showed
how the benefits of breakthrough innovation are often fumbled
because the innovation does not match the dominant business
model of the corporation that developed it. He examined 32
significant innovations developed by Xerox PARC and showed
that substantially more value was created when the new
technologies were spun out than by their use internally. This is
a challenge common to many corporations, and the one we have
sought to address in our work.
The Process of Business Model Innovation
At Goodyear, we have created and tested a six-step process for
developing business models capable of capturing value from
innovation (Figure 1). The pyramid structure of our process
reflects the evolution of risk as the process develops: at the
bottom of the pyramid, the unknowns are many and the risks
high; at the top, many of the inherent risks have been defined
and, to the extent possible, mitigated.
The purpose of the business model work is to reduce the risks
through learning through targeted experiments with customers
and partners before incubating the business in the market. The
process, which begins by identifying the potential for value
creation and ends with the beginning of incubation, is iterative:
it continues until a compelling business model is defined, one
we believe can deliver the value proposition to our target
market at an acceptable cost. A similar learning process
continues during incubation, where we are actually in business,
selling to customers at a small scale. Two businesses have
entered incubation at Goodyear in the past two years and two
others are in earlier stages of development.
Although any innovation process is inherently iterative, there is
a sequence to the analyses and experiments that lead to
effective new business models. Each stage of the process draws
on work others have undertaken in defining and benchmarking
particular aspects of innovation (see "Creating a Language of
Innovation," p. 35). We have integrated that work into a
coherent process that has now been tested in practice.

1. Demonstrate value creation.
We start by ensuring that we have a clear understanding of the
new value the innovation will create for customers. We
explicitly separate the definition of the value proposition from
the business model development work in order to maintain
focus. We have found that if we try to develop the business
model at the same time we are creating new value propositions,
the focus shifts away from the customer and toward our value
capture. The result can be a great business model that sells
something customers don't want.
There are risks in making this separation: it sometimes leads to
value propositions that are economically unrealistic, and teams
may ignore the inherent potential of the company's assets.
However, we find that making the distinction is worth the trade-
off. Any successful business model starts with the desire to fill
a compelling customer need, and it is important to get this first
step right.
Thus, the first deliverable of the business model innovation
process is clarity about value creation. Reaching clarity begins
with uncovering customer needs and developing concepts for
new value propositions; Goodyear uses a range of well-
established design methods for this step. Such methods have
been discussed extensively in the literature (see, for example,
Kelley [2001], Martin [2009], and RTM's May-June 2014
special issue, "The Art and Science of Design"). For an example
of the application of such methods inside a corporation, see
Euchner and Henderson (2011).
Once we have identified a set of value propositions, we attempt
to quantify their benefits from the point of view of the
prospective customer. This exercise defines the ways in which
the customer's world will be materially improved as a result of
adopting our innovation.
The key to success at this stage is to deal with real-world data:
What are people actually doing? How much improvement is
possible in practice? For example, we have quantified the
benefit to truck fleet operators of maintaining optimal air

pressure in their tires. To accomplish this, we needed to
understand current practice and quantify the benefits of an
optimal tire management protocol in terms of tire life, reduced
roadside failures, reduced administrative costs, and improved
fuel economy.
2. Generate business model options.
Business model innovation, at its heart, is about capturing a
share of the value created. A strong business model will capture
a significant portion of that value and do so in a way that is
difficult for others to replicate. It will also offer the potential to
build competitive advantage, often through leveraging assets
available within the corporation. Although there may be a best
business model, depending on the nature of the innovation and
the assets of the corporation, there is rarely a single good
business model. At Goodyear, we explore a number of options.
Good business models have three characteristics: they are
coherent, they offer competitive advantage, and they provide
some form of economic leverage. Coherence refers to the way
the parts of the model work together to create advantage; the
customer set, the basis of competition, the channel, and the
assets that create advantage all must articulate. Competitive
advantage is the differentiation that will attract customers and
perhaps allow flexibility in pricing. Competitive advantage
must be built on a strategic asset--a unique product, differential
power in the channel, a speed to market advantage, or some
form of information advantage. In The Profit Zone (1997),
Slywotzky, Morrison, and Andelman list what they call strategic
control points and their relative strengths. Referring to these
potential points of advantage is a useful reality check.
Economic leverage ensures the business model can deliver
profit at scale. Every coherent business model has an economic
story behind it, an intersection of economic forces that enables
value creation and value capture. In The Art of Profitability
(2002), Adrian Slywotzky outlines 23 distinct business models,
including the experience curve, cost leadership, and
multicomponent profit, and the dynamics that make them work.

It is vital to understand these dynamics in order to understand
the key point of leverage--what must be done in order to be
successful.
Strong business models cannot be generated by brainstorming
the elements of a business model using a tool like the Business
Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). The canvas may
be useful in representing a business model, but it misses the key
dynamic elements of working business models--it does not
represent coherence (or the relationship among elements); it
does not represent the competitive position (which is off the
canvas); and it does not quantify the economic leverage points.
Instead, recognizing that there are a limited number of coherent,
effective models, we use Slywotzky's (2002) 23 archetypes as a
starting point. For a given value proposition, we try to identify
the archetypes that might be appropriate. We ask, who is
offering a similar value proposition in another field? What
business model are they using? Often, we will try to visit a
company that is using an analogous model.
As we were thinking about business models for the value
proposition associated with reducing the total ownership costs
of tires, for example, we were inspired by an insurance
company, FM Global. FM Global sells insurance, but its
policies are bundled with a value proposition that significantly
reduces the probability of loss. Unlike other insurance
companies, FM Global invests in R&D in technologies that
reduce the probability of loss and in experts who can advise on
best practices for risk management; it offers its customers a
tiered pricing model based on adherence to good risk-
management and loss-reduction practices. The costs are higher
in this model than in the one used by most other insurers, but
the casualty losses are much lower. The value to the customer is
not just insurance (and potentially reduced premiums for
compliance with FM Global-identified best practices) but also
uptime.
The FM Global model inspired Goodyear to develop an
analogous model for tire management. We invest in

technologies, management protocols, and product selection that
increases some costs but reduces the total cost of ownership for
fleets, and we are able to capture some of that value. There are
important elements that differ from the insurance model, of
course, but the essence is similar.
In the field of problem solving, selecting from a list of
archetypes and refining the result to fit the specific need is
known as structured selection. That is a good description of the
approach we use at Goodyear, with Slywotzky's archetypes as
the core options.
3. Identify the risks for each option generated.
A business model concept is only a concept. It is fraught with
unknowns and risks. We attempt to clearly identify these risks
up front, focusing on the three types of risks identified by
Adner (2006): business execution (initiative) risks, co-
innovation (interdependence) risks, and adoption (integration)
risks.
To assess the business execution risks, we build a financial
model. Although most of the data in the model are estimates, we
can identify our best estimates of, for example, basic pricing,
the costs of customer acquisition, the costs of goods, customer
startup costs, and customer servicing costs. For each element in
the financial model, we estimate a range and incorporate the
connection of each element to other elements. Everything about
this model may be wrong, but it is still extremely valuable.
Trying to express the logic of the business quantitatively
requires that the elements be carefully thought through.
Estimating values both makes them explicit and highlights their
raw uncertainty. The discussions that are engaged in the
construction of the model, like how one might account for
unused tire inventory in a fleet, are productive in mapping all of
the implications of the value proposition and business model.
There are risks that are beyond the direct control of the
innovator, which Adner refers to as ecosystem risks. The two
primary categories of ecosystem risks are co-innovation risks--
uncertainties related to innovations others must create in order

for your business model to be successful, such as an enabling
technology or a new process--and risks associated with the
innovation adoption chain. Adoption-chain risks relate to the
process of building the alignment among all of the stakeholders
required to bring an innovation to market. Assuming customers
want to buy the new offering, who else might need to be on
board for it to be successful? At Goodyear, the alignment of the
dealer network with a new services offering is an essential
element in the success of a new business model; it therefore
represents a significant adoption chain risk.
To identify the risks for each option, we bring together
participants with a wide range of backgrounds and map out what
must be true for the business model to hold. We identify each
element associated with the value delivery system, our level of
knowledge for that element, the parties who need to align with
it, and our best estimate of the associated costs.
We then use the financial model we have developed to perform
a stochastic analysis of the business model. With off-the-shelf
tools, such analyses are relatively simple to perform. In
essence, the model is run thousands of times, with different
selections for the unknown variables, dependent on their
probability of occurrence. The result of the model is not a
single number for projected profit, but a distribution of profit,
which typically includes instances (combinations of variables)
that are possible but not profitable (Figure 2). The stochastic
model is a starting point for reducing risk. In the example, there
was a very slim chance that the business could have ever been
profitable (the dark zone). All our subsequent work focused on
increasing the chances of profitability. It was not easy, but a
disciplined focus on key drivers of the model got us there.
4. Prioritize the risks.
Stochastic methods can be used to quantify the chances of
business success given your current state of knowledge and to
identify the variables that are likely to have the most effect on
the success (or failure) of the business model. We use a tornado
diagram, which is an artifact of the stochastic model, to depict,

in rank order, the variables that most affect the profitability of
the model (Figure 3). The variables at the top of the list are the
ones with the largest potential effect on the model--and the ones
it will be most beneficial to invest in understanding and
controlling. In the example of the business above (that
originally had a slim chance of being profitable), we identified
that our commercial relationships with our co-innovators were
unsustainable from a profit perspective. Often, the variables
that drive profitability are not intuitively clear. The tornado
diagram derived from the stochastic model makes them explicit.
In some cases, assumptions that have been in the background
take center stage. Once the importance of such an assumption is
identified, customer research and even modification of the value
proposition can increase the potential for profitability.
As an example, in one initiative, we demonstrated value
creation by outfitting commercial trucks with tire monitoring
technology (Step 1). Our business model option (Step 2) was an
add-on service that augmented our product offering and
leveraged our service provider network for competitive
advantage. The model was enabled by a strong ecosystem of
technology partners (Step 3). Our financial model (Step 4)
assumed that customers would sign long-term contracts
(allowing us to amortize the technology costs). The stochastic
modeling highlighted the importance of that assumption. A
significant customer set was unwilling to agree to long-term
contracts, which made the model unprofitable. In order to make
the business model profitable, we had to go back to the drawing
board to develop lower-cost solutions.
5. Reduce risk through business experiments.
The heart of the business model innovation process is business
experiments, conducted in the real world using prototypes,
simulated user experiences, and short trials. These experiments
are designed to provide enough insight to allow us to validate
(or invalidate) a crucial assumption, and reduce the risk
associated with it. For instance, in developing its managed-
services business model, Goodyear conducted trials of two new

enabling technologies to assess their efficacy, user acceptance,
and economic indicators. This involved collecting and analyzing
operating data to quantify the benefits of the technology and
assessing an operations protocol in the field. Results from these
experiments revealed that one of the technologies would not
work in the real world, and the other required extensive user
training at multiple points in the organization to realize its
benefit, which created an unsustainable cost structure. Based on
this important insight, we adapted our business model and
technology strategy to increase the likelihood of success.
We model our experimental efforts on the body of work that has
become known as the "lean startup" approach (Ries 2011; Blank
and Dorf 2012). The premise of this work is twofold: (1) crucial
learning happens with real customers, and (2) successful
learning arises from something akin to the scientific method,
moving from hypothesis through testing to proof. Much of the
work around lean startups has been in the digital realm;
Goodyear is attempting to apply it in manufacturing and
service, which have their own sets of challenges.
The experiments we perform shed light on the riskiest variables
identified by the modeling. A business experiment is generally
short term and limited in scale, but it answers a question that is
critical to the success of the business. As with the scientific
method, it is crucial to isolate the underlying hypothesis that is
being tested and to specify how the assumption--the hypothesis-
-will be tested, what will be measured, and how the results will
be interpreted. We attempt to define experiments formally and
rigorously; the rigor of approach ensures that the experiments
are measuring the right thing, but it is also important for the
legal reviews and coordination required to conduct such
experiments, especially those that directly involve customers,
within a large corporation. We time-bound the experiments in
order to maintain the pace of learning.
The process of reducing the risk associated with a business
model is iterative, continuing until all of the important risks
have been defined and resolved as far as possible, and it can be

extensive. At some point, the likelihood of the business model's
success becomes more clear, leading to a decision point: If there
is very little downside risk associated with the business, or if
the downside risk can be managed effectively, the initiative can
move into incubation. If it emerges that profitability is very
unlikely, even under the best of circumstances, the business
model (and maybe even the initiative) will have to be
abandoned. The risk analysis process must continue until the
picture is clear enough to make one decision or the other; that
point of decision depends on the organization and its tolerance
for particular risk types and levels.
6. Organize for incubation.
The goal of business model innovation is to bring a new
offering to market. But an entirely new venture typically can't
be introduced to the market as a full-blown offering at scale.
The first step in deploying the new model, then, is small-scale
incubation. The primary goals of the incubation phase are to
demonstrate profitability and scalability in the market, and to
identify a business-building strategy.
Incubation at Goodyear follows the same lean startup approach
used in developing the business model, but the ventures are
funded by a corporate incubation fund and overseen by a New
Venture Board (NVB) composed of a few forward-looking
general managers within the company. The agenda of an NVB
meeting is organized around the top five key assumptions
central to the success of the business. NVB reviews involve
identification of a hypothesis about a key assumption,
assessment of actions taken to test the hypothesis, discussion of
the current state of knowledge about the new venture, and
decisions about what is to be done next to further that
knowledge and by when.
A key decision in incubation is whether to organize the new
business within the relevant business unit (what Vijay
Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, in The Other Side of
Innovation [2010], call the "performance engine") or as an
independent entity. The work of Govindarajan and Trimble, as

well as Chesbrough's study, argues for an independent entity if
the new business challenges the business model of the core.
They believe that an independent entity has a greater ability to
escape the orthodoxies of the existing corporation and yet
borrow key assets of the corporation as necessary. Their work
shows that business models operating within established
performance engines are frequently strangled by practices
developed to support the operational efficiency of the core,
starved of critical resources, or co-opted to support the core
business. A change in management in the core or a short-term
crisis can eviscerate the nascent enterprise altogether.
For these reasons, we have chosen to incubate new businesses
as separate divisions with their own staff and general manager,
although this may not apply as a general rule in all situations.
The businesses leverage the resources of the core for support
functions (such as legal and accounting), but have their own
sales, operations, IT, and technology staff. They work closely
with the core business to avoid unnecessary channel conflict or
customer confusion and buy resources (like tires and services)
from the core. The businesses report through the corporate
innovation function and are accountable to the NVB, which
provides oversight and guidance.
The ultimate decision about integration with the core, at least
for the businesses currently in incubation at Goodyear, will be
addressed when we make the decision to scale. The options for
scaling range from organic growth of the startup to
reorganization or transformation of a business unit around the
new business model.
Conclusions
Most of us are faced with scarce resources and high opportunity
costs inside corporations. A disciplined approach to business
model innovation creates the quickest path to market for
ventures, in addition to increasing chances of success. The
approach we are evolving at Goodyear has had many challenges.
From a project standpoint, knowing when to kill a venture
remains a challenge. From a team standpoint, attracting and

developing talent with the nontraditional skills required has
been difficult. Managing the relationship with core businesses
has also presented challenges, especially where the new venture
and the existing business compete for resources or customers.
Business oversight is essential for building credibility, but it
requires a time commitment from operating and a shift in
orientation toward learning.
Business model innovation can be managed as a disciplined
process. Much has been written about different elements of this
process. The contribution of this paper is an integrated view,
which combines the elements in a way that can be successfully
applied inside corporations. The process we propose has been
applied with several value propositions in a range of business
contexts. It has resulted in two businesses that are currently in
incubation and two at late stages of development. We will
continue to refine these methods and tools as we create new
businesses.
Creating a Language of Innovation
Developing a practice requires developing a common language.
We have systematically sought to develop such a language
within Goodyear, by exploring as an organization the works that
inspired our process. Our approach has been to read the
references as an organization and to discuss their application to
the work underway in new business development. Key
references that have been helpful to our practice are:
* The Art of Profitability by Adrian Slywotzky (New York:
Warner Books, 2002). Slywotzky introduces the concept of
profit models. He describes 23 archetypal business models and
their underlying dynamics in a way that illustrates the key
characteristics of coherence, competitive advantage, and
economic leverage. The archetypes themselves are a good
starting point for identifying potential business models.
* The Wide Lens: What Successful Innovators See That Others
Miss by Ron Adner (New York: Portfolio-Penguin, 2013).
Adner discusses innovation ecosystems and two primary types
of ecosystem risks: co-innovation risk and adoption-chain risk.

Many business models are critically dependent on identifying
and managing these risks.
* The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous
Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses by Eric
Ries (New York: Crown Business, 2011). Ries has formalized
the experiment-driven approach to rapid, in-market learning that
has propelled the success of many startups. The process requires
discipline but creates a focus and pace that are very productive.
* The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution
Challenge by Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2010). In
their study of new ventures inside established corporations,
Govindarajan and Trimble identified the dedicated innovation
team, independent of the core performance engine, as a critical
success factor. The book offers a language and an approach that
makes clear that many issues that appear to be political are
actually the natural consequence of breakthrough innovation in
large organizations.
Question 1- Topic 5 DQ 1
In “Business Model Innovation in Practice," Euchner and
Ganguly (2014) discuss the challenge of implementing
innovations within organizations that are naturally resistant to
change. They present a systematic approach for integrating
innovations to increase the likelihood of acceptance and
success. Review their five-step approach and discuss how the
four functions of management (planning, organizing, leading
and controlling) can be leveraged within in their suggested
approach to assist organizations in implementing successful
innovations.

Question 2- Topic 5 DQ 2
What do you anticipate will be the greatest challenge of
operationalizing strategy across various business functions? Do
you think the challenges change depending on the
circumstances? Provide an example within the field of
warehouse logistics.

OVERVIEW Business model innovation is often the key to capturing .docx

More Related Content

Similar to OVERVIEW Business model innovation is often the key to capturing .docx (20)

More from aman341480 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

OVERVIEW Business model innovation is often the key to capturing .docx