Philip Evans, senior advisor at the Boston Consulting Group, provided an outside perspective on the challenges and opportunities of transformation through innovation.
Evans started by reflecting on the successes and failures of other sectors that, like the tobacco industry today, had faced existential crises. He cited Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ decision to walk away from the business of distributing DVDs in favor of streaming video, thereby transforming the company and creating staggering amounts of economic value—and contrasted that with BP’s fruitless attempt to rebrand as “Beyond Petroleum.”
What can such experiences teach the tobacco industry about transformation through innovation? Evans identified five lessons.
First, transformation requires a crisis—the more acute, the better. Transformation takes place regularly in the military—always after defeat, when generals are forced to fundamentally rethink their strategies. And one reason the fast-moving tech industry is so innovative is that when a crisis hits, it tends to hit quickly, which means it cannot be evaded.
Second, while companies can try to overcome their problems through mergers and acquisitions, this will not necessarily achieve the type of transformation that the tobacco industry is interested in. Evans cited the example of the American Can Co., a low-margin commodity business that transformed itself into a life insurance company by buying other businesses. “Over time, the only thing that transformed was the business card of the chief executive,” said Evans, adding that “a bunch of investment bankers probably got very rich in the process.”
The third lesson in transformation, according to Evans, is that it almost invariably takes new leaders to set a new direction—and those leaders need a single-minded, long-term vision, along with the security and legitimacy to withstand short-term reversals, which is the fourth lesson. Evans noted that successful transformers were often led by a sole proprietor. Bill Gates was able to overcome the threat posed by the internet to Microsoft’s software-based business model in part because he was a uniquely powerful controller and owner of the company.
As the fifth lesson, Evans stressed the importance of a clearly articulated strategy and purpose. “Companies that lose their way cannot recruit good people,” he said. Talented candidates are attracted by the promise of growth and vitality, especially through innovation.
Evans then set out to dispel the myth that big companies are unable to innovate. “It’s untrue,” he said. To illustrate his point, he showed a chart plotting the number of patent filings against the population levels in America’s biggest cities. The cities with the most people clearly filed the most patents. “Innovativeness is a function of the breadth and comprehensiveness of the other ideas to which an individual is exposed,” explained Evans. “That exposure is much greater in a large network than it is in a small one. If appropriately structured, there can be positive economies of scale to innovation; big is indeed beautiful.”
The other secret of cities’ success in innovation is their lack of hierarchies. According to Evans, it’s the hierarchy rather than the scale that squelches the ability of many large organizations to innovate. If a large organization wants to be successful in innovation, it should replicate the hierarchy-free social structure of cities.
To illustrate his point, Evans showed charts revealing patterns of collaboration within Google, Apple and Amazon—companies that are large and innovative. While each of these companies operates in a different part of the innovation cycle, the charts revealed patterns of considerable collaboration.
Openness is key, according to Evans. Google, for example, is deeply networked in academia and does not assert intellectual property in the traditional sense.
This lesson was learned the hard way by the pharmaceutical industry toward the end of the 20th century. In the late 1980s, there was little collaboration among pharmaceutical companies, with each player jealously guarding its intellectual property. When large molecule biotechnology emerged in the early 1990s, many traditional pharmaceutical companies stuck to old models of who owns what—and therefore got marginalized.
In the ensuing decades, they were forced to buy their way back into the business by acquiring some of these biotech companies. According to Evans, the pharmaceutical companies have since learned their lesson. But the point, he noted, is profound: Innovation requires openness and sharing. “It is incompatible with a lot of the traditional ideas about exclusivity, secrecy and ownership,” he noted.