Adopting The New - or being adopted by it


Published on

The hard work of being won over is the same at any speed.

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Adopting The New - or being adopted by it

  1. 1. Adopting the New or, being adopted by it An archestra notebook. © 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra
  2. 2. What If • In the dramatic version of “mainstreaming”, it’s not that new things enter the stream; instead, it’s that a different stream becomes the main one. • In a strategy of Convenience, the customer does not come to the product; the product comes to the customer. • Rapid adoption is an indicator that people have been waiting for something even if they had not been looking forward to it. The switch might be triggered just by getting them to look somewhere else. But when they look, they have to see themselves there, too.
  3. 3. Developing the New Inside of a company, a new product (or solution, which we’ll just call “product”, too) will typically develop over time from a concept to a demo to an offering. Usually, the ideal progression shows the product being “pulled” through from beginning to end, due to a formalized enthusiasm (such as a managed project) that already put the development at a competitive priority versus other ideas. In an open market, by comparison, we usually think that a product must “push” its own way through, with some combination of influence and maneuvering for position. In effect, it progressively earns its priority amongst eventual users, versus existing offerings that already have acceptance.
  4. 4. Competition The pattern of going from concept to demo to offering is in place in the open market as well, characterizing the new product’s advance versus the prior one. The contrast between what is already established and good, versus what is novel and better, shows up in different trajectories of ongoing acceptance. As illustrated following, the established product may be holding steady or even gradually sloping upward, but at some point it starts to fall off. Meanwhile, the new product trajectory generally rises from a much lower level to an eventual point where it is equally competitive with the prior offering, or even superior to it, in market acceptance. Product performance is both an influencer and a result of acceptance. But at root, the higher or lower acceptance represents a point-of-view. A shift in point-of-view mainly alters the priority of the product, regardless of the product performance. In the end, Preference, as opposed to acceptance, is based on “what” the product performs, not “how” it performs. For new products, preference is more powerful than performance.
  5. 5. When and How is “good enough” better? As shown in the following, the point where the trajectories intersect may not actually represent competing flavors of the same thing. The subject hereafter is specifically about what makes the new product “better” – as in, what “better” actually means and why it overtakes the prior offering in preference. Accepted value proposition New value proposition ESTABLISHED & GOOD NOVEL & BETTER time
  6. 6. Incubators Where did we get that curve for the new product trajectory? Most of us are familiar with the famous “hype curve”, in which something is worked on, followed by a period of rapidly escalating excitement, followed by a significant downward slope into a more realistic understanding of what is being worked with. This discussion doesn’t pretend to have any hard data that generated the curve. Instead, it is using the generic hype-curve shape symbolically, to represent a “vetting” that takes place during each stage of the new product’s trajectory. We have seen these vettings occur many, many times. raw refined time
  7. 7. Value Evolution The value of the new product evolves in the three stages – from concept to demo to offering. A key question about each stage is, “why was there a net rise in the acceptance of the product?” The answer is different in each stage because each stage accomplishes something different. But the affect is cumulative. What all stages share in common is a “model” for defining what is “better” about the product, leading to overall Acceptance. The model is that Acceptance is made up of Belief, Need and Reliance. However, each stage has a target success factor being addressed, that is served by a specific realization of the model’s terms of acceptance. ACCEPTED per: • Belief • Need • Reliance NOVEL & BETTER Time VIABILITY • Plausible • Functional • Repeatable CONCEPT COMPLEXITY • Credible • Applicable • Available CONVENIENCE • Feasible • Effective • Supported DEMONSTRATION OFFERING
  8. 8. Vetting vs. Terms of Acceptance ACCEPTANCE: • Belief • Need • Reliance As explained here, the new product’s viability, complexity and convenience must all be found acceptable. VIABILITY Success Factors Concept: • Plausible • Functional • Repeatable reasonably predicted from set of conditions prescribes a specific action acts same way each time attempted COMPLEXITY Demonstration: stands up to examination under practical challenge • Credible • Applicable can be used in a given set of circumstances readily sourced and accessed when needed • Available CONVENIENCE Offering: • Feasible • Effective • Supported fits current capabilities and allowances of the user produces intended outcomes when used as prescribed maintained at appropriate state of readiness before and during use © 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra
  9. 9. Proof Points In the open market, each stage is “vetting” something different. The market does not impose pressure on the trial and error of the vetting the way that a company’s internal project management would. Rather, over time the vettings progressively confirm characteristics that create the value proposition to be accepted. The new product’s value proposition does NOT have to overlap the one for the established product. It needs priority. Time Vetting: WHO can make it work WHAT it is used for (esp., functional VIABILITY) ( esp., applicable COMPLEXITY) WHERE it can be used (esp., effective CONVENIENCE) NOVEL & BETTER CONCEPT PHASE DEMONSTRATION PHASE OFFERING PHASE
  10. 10. Customer’s choice A common path to Preference reflects the growing evidence that the new product represents an idea that has been “realized” and is not just a claim or experiment. The path does not cause preference but it allows it. Each stage strengthens the “believability”. Each stage passes the “need” test of a critical success factor. And each stage adds certainty to the accessibility of the product’s desirable difference. Combined with that accessibility, priority moves the new product into a position where it may achieve Preference amongst users. ACCEPTED per: • Belief • Need • Reliance COMPLEXITY • Credible • Applicable • Available PROOF OF CONCEPT • Acknowledged difference • CONVENIENCE • Feasible • Effective • Supported VALID DEMONSTRATION VIABILITY • Plausible • Functional • Repeatable CONFIRMED OFFERING Important impacts • High benefit/risk ratio Realized
  11. 11. Changing of the Guard Across each of the three stages of the new product’s advance, the status of the prior established product also changes relative to the new. • While the new product is in its concept phase, the established product is still available and incrementally improving. • During the new product’s demo phase, the prior product’s value proposition still holds, but key limitations accepted with the prior product stop being decreased. This really means that the problem or ambition being solved by the prior product is not being redefined. • When the new product is in its offering phase, the value proposition of the prior product is actually supplanted by a different value proposition that is preferable. Preference reflects an opportunity that is deemed more important and has higher benefit while simultaneously its opportunity cost is acceptable. VALID DEMONSTRATION PROOF OF CONCEPT • Acknowledged difference • Important impacts CONFIRMED OFFERING • High benefit/risk ratio
  12. 12. The prior established product continues to stay prominent and even improving, according to ongoing interest in how it solves a recognized problem or fortifies a commonly desired opportunity. But during this time, the new product’s value evolves. Demonstrations that practice use of the new product identify the simplest configurations adequate to fit functionality to a significant use case. Some cases eventually become prominent, and broadening awareness of them encourages users to review their own priorities and look into availability. Time Accepted value proposition of established product reflects the primary interest of most users Limitations exist, but value prop of established product as a solution is still leading New product’s value proposition offers opportunity that is more interesting than solving old problem Confirmed by circumstances ESTABLISHED & GOOD Old value prop is superseded by benefit of the new opportunity Validated for uses Proved by practitioner NOVEL & BETTER CONCEPT PHASE DEMONSTRATION PHASE OFFERING PHASE © 2013 Malcolm Ryder / archestra
  13. 13. Notes: It’s not important to belabor the idea much more; the pattern just described is mainly retrospective, although it might also fit some things currently in progress or “in the queue”. • The major implication of the pattern is that user preference is more powerful than product performance, making the detailing of preference into a powerful design consideration. Acceptance, accessibility and priority are the key ingredients of preference. • Fitting products to user priorities is already a typical aspect of design, but there is a difference between what the user wants from a customary (prior) value proposition, and what value proposition the user actually wants. • Users whose priorities change may do so primarily due to the force of some example elsewhere. • Powerful examples, capable of changing preferences, are likely to be both convincing and convenient. • The demonstrated opportunities of a new product can obsolete the preference for the old, clearing the way for faster adoption of the new.
  14. 14. Casual examples of contrasting value props • Affordable glamour was a critical un-served part of music entertainment experience for huge numbers of people of modest incomes and talent… until Disco takes over. • Digital CDs and later iTunes made personal music collections far more portable, but huge numbers of users were more interested in variety than in ownership. YouTube and Pandora take over. • A huge percentage of laptop computing users actually wanted media clients. Tablets take over. • Most compact cameras now have applications and wireless networking built in for ad hoc communication, yet they come from “smartphone” makers. • Urban “public” transportation could evolve largely as fleets of electric rental cars, in order to satisfy personal convenience without the burden of private ownership. • Online education courses might be compiled from multiple providers to offer a “school” where course availability is far higher than on-campus, although the campus environment might still enhance study of any given course. • And so on…