PS: We think this article is the second ability that 20 18 needs to strengthen to survive. The first one is (our previous analysis: the power of marketing new reality | 2065 438+08 the first change point).

Although officials often talk about innovation with many enterprises, we have several more important points:

1, entrepreneur = innovation, and entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs only if they innovate.

2, innovation brings monopoly. Only monopoly can maximize profits.

Without innovation, the result of competition is unprofitable.

4. All prosperity and recession are brought by innovation. Knowing this phenomenon can alleviate the strategic anxiety of many enterprises.

Before expounding these viewpoints, let's have a straightforward understanding of "several factors that hinder enterprise innovation", which is also a * * * problem that I found after experiencing some enterprises. Because, if you only understand the importance of innovation and don't know which thinking and behavior habits hinder innovation, then it may be meaningless to carry out the work.

Almost all enterprises claim to be innovative enterprises and encourage innovation.

For example, I once attended a lecture hosted by a senior vice president of Philips. He said, "Philips is a very innovative company. In fact, innovation is a very important part of our values. "

Then, someone at the scene asked a good question:

Hello, as you mentioned, Philips is very innovative, so what are the internal regulations or workflows of Philips to ensure innovation?

At this time, Mr. Vice President first repeated this friend's question (a good strategy to deal with it), and then said:

"In fact, we are not lacking in innovation. On the contrary, we have too many innovative ideas. It is important to find a way to filter them. "

Well, let me compare his answer to:

It's like a person proclaiming his success and making money, but when you ask curiously:

"How on earth did you make money?"

He replied: "In fact, my biggest problem is not that I can't make money, but that I don't know how to spend it because I have too much money."

Yes, in the information we have access to, we will find that almost all enterprises claim to encourage innovation.

However, when you ask how to encourage innovation, what laws and regulations have been implemented to reduce organizational inertia, improve tolerance for new ideas, and how to ensure the implementation of new ideas, you will often find that they actually lack these methods.

Many people think that "promoting innovation" only needs to shout slogans and show attitudes, but they don't know that "improving innovation" is actually the same as improving "profit", and attitudes and slogans have no direct effect.

All enterprises want to "improve profits", but this idea itself cannot improve profits;

Similarly, all enterprises want to "encourage innovation", but this idea itself cannot really encourage innovation-even Kodak and Nokia, which have failed to adapt to change, are actually so-called "encourage innovation" enterprises.

Strategy, execution and innovation are the same thing.

Then, what is the reason why enterprises want to pursue innovation but can't really realize it? Let's give you an analysis of several substantive reasons.

Because people and organizations are born with the following inertia, they refuse to innovate:

1

Unnecessary assumption

Please read such a short story first (just for example):

A father and son had a car accident. The father was killed and his son was rushed to the hospital. In the operating room, the surgeon saw the boy and said, "I can't operate on him. He is my son." ......

What was your first reaction when you saw this story?

I think many people have the same reaction as me: Is that boy the illegitimate child of a surgeon?

Look! Before you fantasize about the bloody plot of the whole story, please take a look at the most real explanation of this story:

A child's father died, and a doctor's mother saw her child before the operating table.

Yes, there is no illegitimate child, and there is no "dog blood gossip plot". This is actually just a very common car accident case.

But why is your first reaction "This child is the illegitimate child of the surgeon"?

Because in your subconscious, the surgeon is a man. Moreover, a large number of male words such as "he" and "boy" in the whole story further strengthen your hypothesis.

In fact, this assumption is unnecessary when you judge this story.

When you judge something with unnecessary assumptions,

It is easy for you to make a wrong judgment.

But we have formed a certain fixed habit for a long time (for example, most surgeons we meet are male), which leads to this past habit being regarded as "reality" or "golden rule" by us.

And when we take this so-called "golden rule" to deal with new problems, we often refuse to innovate.

The golden rule must have its premise.

For example, for many years, the aviation industry in the United States has always had such a golden rule:

Long-haul routes are good, but short-haul routes are not.

Why?

Because of the price control in American aviation industry, in order to promote the development of small towns, the government forces the price of short-haul routes to be lower than the operating cost; Then let the airlines make up for it by making profits on long-haul routes.

At this time, the pros and cons are very clear: "Run long distances because the profits are good!"

Therefore, the government has imposed restrictions, stipulating that airlines must guarantee a certain proportion of short-haul routes.

Therefore, airlines covet long-haul routes with high profit margins and are unwilling to continue to operate short-haul routes.

At this time, the policy suddenly changed-the government gradually relaxed the control of the aviation industry, and airlines were free to choose their own business.

If you are an airline executive at this time, what is your strategy?

My first instinct for most people is simple:

Since I am no longer forced to run short distances, I will run long distances.

And this is also the practice of United Airlines: directly abandon all short-haul routes and run all long-haul routes.

What's the problem here?

The problem here is that this "golden rule" has existed for so long that most people forget the premise of existence: short-haul routes have low profits because of price control.

However, this premise is no longer valid. Now that the government has lifted the control, airlines can set prices freely, and short-haul industries can raise prices and create profits.

Moreover, the premise of profit for long-haul routes does not exist.

In the past, long-haul routes could be profitable because of price control, and airlines could not fight price wars. Now that the price control has been abolished, airlines that increase their long-distance business crazily are bound to launch a fierce price war under the condition of meager profits.

At this time, short-haul routes are the best choice, because there is room for pricing and the competition is not fierce.

The best choice under this "new environment" does not conform to the "golden rule" of the industry.

Many so-called "golden rules" actually do not exist independently, and their existence is based on some "assumptions". And once one day these assumptions become "unnecessary", these golden rules will lose their foundation of existence.

When the company grows slowly, it will naturally form a certain golden rule inside.

For example, "We are a company specializing in XX field", "We produce our own products instead of outsourcing" and "No absenteeism is allowed". ......

These golden rules are often laid down by the founders of companies, and their original existence must be reasonable. But as time goes on, people gradually forget the assumption that these golden rules exist.

As a result, the "existence premise" of these golden rules will disappear one day, and people will still use these meaningless rules to block innovation.

"You don't understand, our company has always been like this, which is the guarantee for our survival for 20 years!"

Then you should ask:

"So what is the reasonable assumption of this rule? Is this hypothetical premise still necessary now? If the assumption that a law exists is unnecessary, why should we abide by it? "

We are in the instinct of rejecting strangeness.

2

Excessive pursuit of predictability

Another way for enterprises or any organizations to restrain innovation is to pursue "predictability".

It is almost everyone's nature to pursue "predictability". When hearing a strange idea, a strange workflow, or just seeing a strange product, most people will naturally refuse.

Think about how many people scoffed at smartphones at the beginning-"Is this too difficult to learn?" It's no use.

Aren't you shocked by such an evaluation? Some people think that the previous 20-key mobile phone is more "easy to use" than the 1 key mobile phone, and these people turned out to be the majority a few years ago.

In fact, the real reason in their subconscious is not that smartphones are not easy to use, but that smartphones are "too strange."

It is found that when a brand-new product comes on the market, no matter how many advertisements are made, more than 80% people are just "interested" and don't buy it.

Most people will never buy a new product (whether it is a smart phone or a smart bracelet) until they see their friends using it.

This is human nature, which leads to a large number of behaviors to suppress enterprise innovation.

If you have a similar experience, you must be familiar with such a scene:

After a long time of thinking and analysis, you finally came up with an excellent strategy-"according to the current situation, we need to improve the team's workflow."

Then you talk to your boss excitedly, and you will find that the other person starts to frown within 10 seconds, and then he is in a bad mood.

But how can people finish thinking in such a short time? Complete the process of problem definition and feasibility analysis. In such a short time, and then the final answer is no-how can people do this?

All this shows that the person who rejects you has no basic "thinking" at all, and is completely in the instinct of rejecting "strangeness".

Once inspired by this instinct, the rest of the time is simple: they will question that you don't have detailed data to support, point out that your idea is illogical, and will vomit "Is it done by competitors?" "Competitors don't do it, it's too expensive, and we dare not try."

Then they will find that this logic doesn't even make sense to themselves (after all, only by doing what competitors don't do can they enjoy the first-Mover advantage), and finally they will refuse on the grounds of "I'll reconsider" and "be cautious about investing now".

People have a natural need for predictability and a natural fear of strangeness.

And this demand for "predictability" is simply a huge killer for the company to "kill innovation".

They must ask for detailed data analysis, do what others have done, and at least find a "benchmark enterprise" to compare. Sometimes these pursuits can't reduce the project risk. What really reduces is "strangeness" and brings "psychological comfort" instead of "interest promotion".

So if there is an opportunity, you can analyze this question clearly: is your refusal the product of analyzing the pros and cons after carefully understanding the situation, or is it a natural rejection of strangeness and the pursuit of predictability?

Without innovation, strategy is zero.

three

Just want to reduce mistakes.

Strict control to reduce mistakes-whether it is controlling every production process or KPI of employees, it is the guarantee for the success of many enterprises.

Over the years, countless management consulting companies have been selling "strict control" methods to enterprises to ensure their business.

Whether emphasizing lean management or popularizing Six Sigma theory (controlling the error rate to a few percent), the essence is to improve efficiency by "strictly controlling and reducing errors".

Companies that believe in "strict cybernetics" believe that success means "minimizing mistakes."

Actually, it is not, because the success of a company or an individual actually depends on two factors:

Success = reducing losses+increasing profits

Yes, trying to "reduce all mistakes" will not make a company continue to succeed. The success of a company also depends on adding "good" aspects-such as continuous innovation.

It is not enough just to "reduce losses". Just because you have cured all the diseases doesn't mean that you have become healthy. You just became "disease-free" If you want to be healthy, you should also "add good things"-such as fitness, swimming, regular work and rest, etc.

However, many companies only focus on "reducing bad things". They believe in "cybernetics" and believe that as long as all processes are controlled and no mistakes are made, they can win.

Some companies' analyst teams are like this. They spend all their time "observing internal regulations" instead of "seeking new discoveries".

They spend a lot of energy to follow the established model and conform to the existing PPT template, because at least they can "hand in their homework" as required.

Although this "reduces bad things" to a certain extent, it also "reduces good things"-stifles innovation.

In fact, many companies' great innovations are products outside the workflow-such as 3M post-it notes, Google Mail, Tencent's WeChat and so on. Why Didi Chuxing has not been innovated by taxi companies? Public comment is not an innovation of a physical industry? Obviously.

It is this behavior of "trying to reduce all mistakes through strict control" that suppresses innovation-because there is no room for trial and error.

PS: This doesn't mean not to "reduce mistakes", but to balance "reduce mistakes" and "increase good things", instead of just focusing on one end.

Innovation is a threat to finish on time and step by step.

four

Suppression accident

Before the 9 1 1 terrorist attacks in the United States, FBI agent MichaelKennethWilliams found some coincidences:

Several Arabs are learning to fly a plane. Paradoxically, they don't want to learn take-off and landing technology, which is the most difficult and critical aircraft skill.

This caught Williams' attention: What can a pilot who can't take off and land do? What is the use of learning to fly like this? No airline is willing to hire such a person.

Then a terrible idea came into the agent's mind: the only purpose of learning to fly like this is hijacking and suicide attacks, right?

The agent immediately sent a letter to the headquarters, asking to investigate suspicious people who were learning to fly planes all over the country, and issued a warning that a "hijacking incident" might occur.

However, such a warning was ignored by the boss, who thought the accident was a complete coincidence and was not worth considering.

Indeed, in the eyes of many people, "an accident is an accident", which is just a coincidence.

They just want to finish today's work. In their view, it is simply immature to explore novel ideas and rush to find clues in the accident. The so-called mature people must be like them:

I just want to finish the work as soon as possible.

In such a team, as long as there is something unconventional, it is regarded as a threat to "finish the plan on time" and "step by step"

Imagine that the company's project has been completed 90%, and then you suddenly and creatively find that there are serious problems in this project, and then make suggestions:

Mr. Wang, now I suddenly find that there are serious problems in this project. I suggest that we reconsider and do it in another way.

What kind of reply do you think you will get at this time?

In most cases, the reply you get is:

"No, let's stick to the current plan, so that we can all finish the plan on time and without error."

The above example is what happened before the space shuttle Challenger crashed: a few days before the launch, engineers suddenly found something wrong with the spacecraft. But this question was considered as a threat to finish the plan on time, so it was rejected.

Finally, the spaceship exploded shortly after liftoff.

When the business performance is the best, we must start to lay out the next round of innovation.

Let's sum up:

Most people like fixed repetition, and these people constitute most people in the company. Coupled with the inertia of the organization itself, most companies are inherently exclusive to innovation.

1, they often adhere to the so-called "golden rule", but ignore its premise assumption, which may be unnecessary long ago.

2. They hate strangeness and long for a "predictable feeling". They believe that as long as it conforms to existing ideas, it is often right.

3. They emphasize control and think that everyone will follow the workflow step by step, so there will be no mistakes.

4, they suppress accidents, in their view, any accident is a threat to "finish the work on time", rather than as a source of creativity and opportunity.

More importantly, they believe that this experience is correct and has been proved.

The famous historian daniel Boorstin said:

The biggest obstacle to acquiring knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge.

Similarly, the biggest obstacle to innovation is not the lack of knowledge and experience, but the illusion of knowledge and experience-it is right to feel that you know it well and feel accustomed to it.

Obstructing innovation is chronic suicide.

Marketing insight

Entrepreneur = innovation

Above, we talked about four reasons why enterprises encourage innovation, but innovation is difficult. Why should we clarify these factors that hinder innovation and hope that entrepreneurs and friends can overcome these difficulties?

Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs only if they innovate.

Therefore, enterprises must have entrepreneurs (not only managers, but also their differences).

19 12 years ago, that is, one hundred years ago, Schumpeter published his masterpiece on economic development, in which he put forward the words "innovation" and "entrepreneur". Therefore, if we want to talk about innovation, or entrepreneurs, we should first go back to Schumpeter.

His point of view shows: entrepreneur = innovation.

Schumpeter first put forward a theory: the economy itself will not develop.

He said: "It should be said that there is no economic development. Economic development is not a phenomenon that can be explained from the economic aspect; The economy that has not developed itself is dragged down by the changes in the surrounding world; To this end, we must find the reasons for development outside the facts described in economic theory. "

Beyond this economy is innovation. Without innovation, there will be no economic development.

Social development and innovation in each period will bring about rapid economic development. When one round of innovation bonus ends, the economy will stagnate, reach a balanced cycle, and then wait for the next round of innovation.

This is consistent with our feeling of running a business. The so-called "year after year of sadness" did not starve to death, but just ate and continued. Many business owners lead a hard life. Unlike everyone's imagination, the boss is so rich. If the enterprise still has a little money to put into reproduction, the boss can still make a little profit to support his family. Schumpeter said that the money is not a profit, but just a management salary.

Innovation brings monopoly.

Only monopoly can maximize profits.

Schumpeter's circular economy equilibrium is a bit like the "energy conservation principle" we learned. The lower the energy, the more stable it is. This is also in line with what we call Drucker's thought: what enterprises pursue is not profit maximization, but profit minimization. What do you mean? Profit is a competitive resource that can be invested. How to starve competitors with minimum profit is a common means for enterprises, so-called "vicious competition"! Only monopoly can maximize profits.

It can be seen that profit is an unstable temporary phenomenon, not a stable normal phenomenon. The profit of an enterprise is temporary and unstable. No profit is normal and stable.

Only innovation can make a profit. Without innovation, the result of competition will make you unprofitable.

After a successful innovation, we entered a profitable period. In this profit-making period, there is a persistent inertia, so that we stopped innovating, and he continued to give us profit returns until one day, the innovation of others subverted our success and we suddenly died. This is the case with Nokia.

So, what is innovation? Schumpeter defined five kinds of innovation:

1, adopting new products: products unfamiliar to consumers (or new functions of products);

2. Adopt new production methods;

3, to open up new markets, that is, a manufacturing department of the country concerned has never entered before, and may or may not exist before;

4, for raw materials or semi-finished products to obtain new sources of supply, whether this source of supply is already existing or created for the first time;

5. Realize new industrial organization, such as creating monopoly position or breaking monopoly position.

Therefore, we don't have to lament how difficult the real economy is. Enterprises in the real economy are also doing well (such as Starbucks, Muji, famous products, Xiaomi new retail, etc.). ), because they have innovation and innovation monopoly. The real economy without innovation is always difficult.

As for the abnormal bubble prosperity of virtual economy, it is institutional monopoly and institutional arbitrage.

Innovation is the ability to solve problems.

Only entrepreneurs can innovate.

In fact, Schumpeter defined entrepreneurs by innovation.

Innovation is to establish new combinations, that is, to eliminate old combinations through competition. We call those who realize new combinations "enterprises" and those whose function is to realize new combinations "entrepreneurs".

The function of an entrepreneur is to combine the factors of production and integrate them together, because only when these factors are first combined can this be a special action-and if it is done in the process of running a business, it is just a routine.

Therefore, because entrepreneurs are not a profession, they are generally in a state of innovation and innovation. The general manager is not necessarily an entrepreneur, nor is the chairman an entrepreneur. Only when he is innovative can he be an entrepreneur.

Without innovation, you are not an entrepreneur, but a manager. Managers can only get "management salary", and only entrepreneurs can make profits. This profit is called "entrepreneur profit". Once innovation stops, profits will soon disappear.

Enterprises should have entrepreneurs.

Similarly, when we think about our own enterprises, we also know how to measure ourselves with five innovations at any time. All our profits come from innovation. If there is no innovation this year, there will still be profits, which is the inertia of the advantages established by innovation last year, and this inertia will leave us at any time.

Therefore, when our business performance is the best, we must start to lay out the next round of innovation, otherwise, we will be eliminated at any time. This is why excellent entrepreneurs always say that they are only half a year away from bankruptcy. If an enterprise loses its innovation and creativity, it will definitely not be able to play. Enterprises should have entrepreneurs.

The emergence of entrepreneurs is the only reason for economic prosperity.

If one person or several people successfully advance, many difficulties will disappear, so others will follow in the footsteps of these pioneers, until finally innovation is familiar to people and becomes something that everyone can choose, and this round of innovation dividend will be settled quickly.

For example, the appearance of Jobs led to the appearance of Xiaomi Lei Jun, and the appearance of Lei Jun led to the appearance of Huawei Yu East. What is brought now is the decline of Apple's revenue and profits, and eventually the profits of the entire smartphone industry will disappear.

Therefore, the cause of recession is the result of prosperity. The result of the recession is the next round of innovation, the next round of dividends.

This is why we say that the key to enterprise pursuit lies in "never going out". Only innovation can ensure that you can get on the table and wait for good cards. Apple is now in full swing and has experienced many ups and downs. Apple has introduced two innovations in the fields of personal computers and smart phones. He may decline again, and it is normal to rise again through innovation.

Understanding these phenomena can alleviate everyone's "strategic anxiety" or "transformation anxiety". When the economy enters the recession cycle, we should strive to get rid of all the old thinking patterns and behavior habits that hinder innovation, do not take shortcuts, and plunge into the deepest reality to solve problems when encountering problems. And we should strengthen our mission and strategy, instead of looking for other opportunities through transformation, or even turning transformation into career change.

Source: Sicheng Marketing (sicheng7790) Author: Bao Sicheng

Chief planner | Bao Sicheng, consultant | Jung, planner | Yang Siqi, editor ||| Mary

Some materials in this paper are quoted from: Winer, Russell S. (2006): Pricing. Institute of marketing science.