![]()
Spring is a time of change and transition, just right for reading a new book on innovation. “Seizing The White Space” by Mark W. Johnson is the latest volume to come from Innosight, and seems to be right the right thing for spring reading. It’s a highly readable and very quick to get through if your mind has already made the transition to summer; yet, it is has enough chewy content for those of us who are still want to curl up hearthside with an interesting book.
Johnson puts forth what he calls the four box business model to capture the dynamic tension between three key aspects of the value system underlying a business. Yes, that’s right – four boxes to capture three key aspects. These are:
Customer Value Proposition – What is it that customer derives value from when your offering is selected. Of course, given the Christensen heritage of Innosight it comes as no surprise that Johnson returns to the job to be done jargon to talk about the value proposition. Personally, I was just happy to see the value-prop called simply and directly what it is. (Okay, I’m just weary of some authors who feel compelled to try and coin new jargon for what is already a well understood concept.)
Profit Formula – The strategy for monetization of the Customer Value Proposition.
Key Resources and Process – The things, people, and processes that are needed to deliver the Customer Value Proposition. Johnson separates the concepts of resources and process in his representation. Hence, the four boxes to represent three key aspects.
While these concepts may seem pretty basic, there are far too many companies that seem to forget that this system, and more importantly, the need to harmonize and balance these elements of the system exist. Ignoring some of Clayton Christensen’s best advice (be patient on revenues, but impatient about profit) many companies attempting to claim a white space opportunity as their territory burn through loads of capital to try and drive the revenue engine only to dilute the share value so much that no one can hope to extract value from the venture.
Throughout “Seizing The White Space,” Johnson uses many examples and comparisons of how these various elements interact in both successful and failed business models. The examples help to bring to life what could otherwise be a very dry and boring domain of study. You will need to filter some of the discussion through your analysis. Some of the issues around the cases studies are open to interpretation.
After addressing the questions of when and how to look at business model innovation, Johnson reminds us of how existing demands and practice of a going concern can block the organizations ability to define and implement a new system to attack a white space opportunity.
I enjoyed “Seizing The White Space” and certainly recommend it as a worthwhile read for innovation practitioners or managers responsible for considering, planning for, or executing on new business platform opportunities.
This is the fifth stop on a virtual book tour for “Seizing The White Space.” Earlier stops on the tour can be visited at:
Working Knowledge – Andrea Meyer’s excellent blog
Blogging Innovation – A multi-author innovation blog maintained by Braden Kelley
Innovate on Purpose – Jeffrey Phillips thoughtful blog on innovation strategy and practice
FastForward Blog – An Enterprise 2.0 blog where Jim McGee review the book
Yet to come on the virtual book tour is Dan Keldsen’s interview with Mark Johnson which will appear on the Information Architected blog.









Brainstorming Innovation – The Wisdom of the Cloud
Brainstorming continues to be a common method to try and shake out the cobwebs and draw out new ideas from teams. In practice however, the outcome of brainstorming often falls short of expectations as team get stymied by a stalled creative front. Psychological inertia, hidden agenda, lack of insight can all contribute to these non-productive innovation weather patterns. To understand how people can influence the brainstorming outcome, let’s look to the wisdom of the cloud.
There are a number of different types of clouds, each with its own make up and effect on the weather. So too are there difference classes of participants in a brainstorming exercise. Can you recognize the similarities?
Cumulus clouds are puffy and cheerful. These clouds are willing participants in the brainstorming exercise, but rarely contribute any significant ideas. They tend to revel in the exercise and cheer on other cumulus clouds by seeing the shapes of imagined novelty in what are in reality the same old concepts.
Cirrus clouds are high and wispy. They often bring some very high-level ideas to the table. But, the ideas are generally not deep and may lack good alignment with the overall business objectives. It can be a challenge to distinguish between the cirrus idea that could have value if it were only further developed and the concept which is going to simply drain valuable resources to explore and kill because it is not a good fit.
Fog. Need we say more. We can all recognize the team member who just doesn’t seem to have a clue.
Cumulonimbus clouds have presence. They are large and have great substance. But they can also bring great destruction as they unleash their energy. These people often harbor hidden agenda. The tornado of energy is released not so much to advance the cause, but to tear down the ideas of other in an attempt to perpetuate their own views and goals.
Nimbostratus are the clouds that yield steady rain. It is sometimes uncomfortable to want in the rain, but as any farmer will tell you, you need water to grow crops. The reason these peoples’ ideas often feel uncomfortable is that these concepts are grounded—they are novel enough to simulate that instinct to resist change, but grounded in enough reality to seem achievable. These are often the most productive member of the brainstorming team.
If we want to stimulate more innovation rain, how can we do this? Seed the clouds with knowledge.
Brainstorming doesn’t create new ideas. It simply helps people tap into what they have forgotten they know. The more relevant knowledge they have access to, the more ease with which they can access that knowledge in a useful way, the more likely they are to make the connections that produce that moment of creative synthesis.
Connecting innovation workers to the right knowledge at the right time is a key aspect of how you can increase the innovation productivity of your organization in brainstorming and other innovation activities as well.
Posted at 10:29 AM in Commentary, Innovation Techniques | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | Save to del.icio.us |