Winning When The Game Keeps Changing

Having spent more than my fair share of time helping businesses change to be more successful, the most common reaction to anything new is 'no, not yet'. A large part of this reflex is driven by the kabuki theater of 'disruption' and 'innovation' as sold to businesses by those who advise them, the technologists that create solutions, and often by key leaders in the companies themselves.

Wanting to become 'a digital native', 'data driven', or 'ai enabled' or some other buzzy catchphrase is not sufficient or even meaningful to drive durable results over time. The corporate and startup graveyard is full of companies that said "we are a technology company that [insert actual business here]."

This is not to say that technology is not capable. It is more than capable — it is arguably magical — Moore's Law being rewritten, Singularity is a lot closer than Kurzweil thought, and every day brings a step change in capabilities that companies can take advantage of.

So, where's the rub?

To break this cycle, companies need to lock in on 'the what' and reinvent 'the how'.

The 'what' are the critical business outcomes that companies need to achieve in the market they operate in to deliver results. Retailers need to avoid churn, insurance companies need to underwrite for a profit, manufacturers need to develop and deliver products, etc.

The 'what' often gets lost in the sauce of PoCs, MVPs, or shuffled under the carpet of 'transformation.' Despite all the talk about disruption, companies are not entitled to their own definition of profit, loss, or growth. Google "Community Adjusted EBITDA" for a great example of attempting to invent your own math.

The 'how' is where the true work is required. Companies bring a structure, a set of processes, an operating rhythm, and enough dogma to create massive resistance to change.

How should we underwrite?
How do we create customer intimacy?
How can we develop new products?

This is where incrementalism (disguised as evolution) thrives. Human nature finds comfort in familiar patterns, and 'change' is often a function of extending a current pattern and calling it different.

Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" describes how a paradigm shift occurs not through incrementalism but by abruptly replacing the old with the new, after exploring the anomalies that are often discarded.

Resistance to the new paradigm is commonplace given that people are deeply invested in the old framework. This book is too good for the TLDR treatment.

Technology, operating models, process and job changes need to be pointed squarely at 'the how' without losing sight of 'the what'.

We need to uncover completely different ways to achieve the same ultimate business goals. We cannot be content in safe space in concepts like 'ai-augmentation' or 'co-pilot'. The anomalies will be uncomfortable but will be undeniable.

The winners will not be hard to find.