Um aviso: everybody on the inside buys into the bullshit

"“You know who should have invented Airbnb? Marriott Hotels,” says Black, starting a strange metaphor. “But they didn’t, because they’re so far up their own ass in the micro of running hotels that they could never, ever see outside of where they are. So, change instead comes from some eggheads down in Silicon Valley.”
.
“Disruption never comes from within. Every disruption is caused from the outside because everybody on the inside buys into the bullshit.”
...
Disruption happens when an outsider doesn’t follow the same practices, develops new ones, and competes differently; changing the game in their favor."

Trecho retirado de "Disruption Never Comes From Within"

No-brainer

Escrevo aqui muito sobre Mongo, sobre a explosão de tribos, sobre a progressiva radicalização de cada tribo e sobre o problema das empresas grandes, habituadas a trabalhar para a grande caixa da massa central, a tentarem continuar a servir todos.

Tribos radicalizadas valorizam a autenticidade...

Como é que as empresas grandes vão lidar com o desafio:

"Startups can do anything..
Companies can only do what’s legal..
Startups can do anything One of the unheralded advantages of a startup is what at first glance appears to be its weakness. Initially, a startup has no business model and no market share to defend. Its employees and investors don’t depend on an existing revenue stream. If they select a business model that targets industry incumbents, they don’t have to worry about upsetting existing customers, partners or distribution channels.
.
Yet those very weaknesses give startups an overwhelming advantage in innovation.  Startups can try any idea and any business model—even those that are on the surface patently illegal.
.
At times laws and regulations are in place for the health and safety of consumers. But often the legal obstacles confronting startups have been put in place by companies that look to the government and regulators as their first line of defense against new market entrants. (Existing companies also use network effects of monopolies/duopolies, distribution channel kickbacks, etc., to stifle competition.)
.
In the past, these anti-innovation tools were sufficient to keep new entrants out. But today, investors realize that companies that depend on regulation and artificial market constraints are actually vulnerable. Once presented with an alternative to the status quo, customers who have been locked into rent-seeking companies flock to innovative startups with business models that provide better service, lower prices, etc. Enormous financial returns are available to startups taking on incumbents, regulators and the law. So, startup investors comfortable making a risk capital bet are actively encouraging startups to go after large, static industries that look prime for disruption.
...
Companies can do anything legal In the 20th century companies worried about increasing their market share, profit margins, return on investment and return on net assets. They tenaciously protected their existing markets from other existing companies that were using the same business model. They very rarely worried about disruption from new firms as the barriers to entry (financial, legal, regulatory) were so high.
.
Ironically once companies become locked in their entrenched market positions, it became difficult for them to compete by breaking the same laws or untangling their existing channel relationships. In contrast to startups, companies are constrained by local, state and federal laws and regulations.  The risk of breaking laws can result in large penalties and shareholder lawsuits.  The Justice Department and State Attorneys General find large companies attractive targets.
.
As a consequence, one of the roles of the legal department in large corporations is to protect the company from straying into any legal or regulatory danger."

Trechos retirados de "Steve Blank Why a Company Can’t “Be More Like a Startup”"

Dúvida (parte II)

Parte I.

Acredito que vamos começar a ver com mais frequência notícias deste tipo, pelo menos em certos países.

What ails retAIL? The number of stores that have shut this year. The #DigitalTsunami in Retail. https://t.co/WJcSfzevlZ pic.twitter.com/CXXB7NzokI

— Abhijit Bhaduri (@AbhijitBhaduri) April 8, 2017

"the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics job market report released on Friday showed it was an even bigger disaster than expected, with 30,700 jobs lost. Combined with similar job losses in February, the retail industry had its worse two-month job creation period since the depths of the Great Recession. And retail, which employs nearly 16 million Americans, was one of the very few industries to ditch jobs last month and certainly cut the most jobs by far of any industry."

E sempre a mesma resposta instintiva e errada, tal como nos media:

"Under enormous pressure from investors, retailers are cutting costs, including personnel, in a bid to hit earnings per share targets despite soft sales, thereby meeting projections and mollifying investors. The irony of course is that leaner store staffs will likely compromise store service and give shoppers more reason to go online. And many of them have made it clear, when they go online, they go to Amazon. Hello, vicious cycle."

Quando um disruptor oferece uma proposta de valor superior aos clientes os incumbentes só sabem responder com os custos...

Trechos retirados de "Bankruptcies and Amazon Impact on Retail Hiring"

Acerca do futuro e dos bancos

Case in point! Any "problem" or "situation" a customer faces is the result of their existing solution for a #jtbd. https://t.co/PZHBJHWoZB

— Alan Klement (@alanklement) March 24, 2017

Ontem li este título "Contas bancárias grátis vão acabar dentro de uma década" e a coisa que imediatamente me veio à mente foi o futuro dos bancos e a fintech.

É claro que o Lindy Effect é forte mas:

• Acerca dos bancos e Mongo
• Acerca da banca do futuro (parte II)
• Acerca do futuro dos bancos

"Business can be in control of the choice to self-disrupt its own system before someone else does it for them"

"The move in focus should be defined as this: move from an industry focus (large industry agglomerations) into small user-centric models. Pieces of the market are breaking away from the historically vertical structure of industries. As we move to a more horizontal marketplace, ownership resources pale into insignificance compared to direct access to users. Whatever industry a business is in, it can be sure that someone is working hard now to fracture it with their new connection method. What we can be sure of is that the new technology and environment will make the disruption inevitable. Business can be in control of the choice to self-disrupt its own system before someone else does it for them."

Trecho retirado de "The Great Fragmentation : why the future of business is small" de Steve Sammartino

Acerca dos bancos e Mongo

"They lost the most important asset Ask anyone on the street what they think of banks and how they behave with our money and their two most important requirements of trust and respect are rarely on the list. Add to that the technological possibilities emerging for peer-to-peer finance and we have a looming great finance disruption. No industry is immune to a revolution, not even banks.
...
Like many industries the once ‘physical’ side of what banks had to produce is less and almost totally irrelevant. The security of a bank is not a function of how secure its vaults are. The vaults are now all virtual, as is the impending business model. In short, banks are in the data and trust business. Now that data has been democratised, it’s only rational to assume that new players will emerge and do what banks do. With the tools of banking now being cheap, more peer-to-peer finance will emerge within the business of traditional banking.
.
As with many industries, the supply chain is being shortened. People are choosing to deal direct. Why? Because we can.
...
Like much of the change we’ve already seen in many industries, it won’t be about a new player coming in to knock over the incumbents by doing what they do. It will happen, and is happening, in much the same way as what we’ve seen in retail, media and other industries: fragment by fragment."[Moi ici: Outra vez o lago de nenúfares]

Recordar:

• Acerca da banca do futuro (parte II)
• Acerca do futuro dos bancos

"M-Pesa is the conduit for half of Kenya’s GDP. Credit goes from phone to phone, and that credit is a new form of money” Ping @tar1na

— Esko Kilpi (@EskoKilpi) April 17, 2016

Trechos retirados de "The Great Fragmentation : why the future of business is small" de Steve Sammartino

China e Impressão 3D, os opostos de uma escala

"Over the past year, technology and sharing economy start-ups have continued their disruption of traditional industries
...
Disrupter: 3D printers
.
Industry threatened: Small component manufacturers and distributors
Reason why: Growing use of on-site 3D printing to make parts
Any concertgoer knows it is easier to print tickets than pick them up or hope they arrive in the post, writes Patrick McGee. Businesses will soon realise the same applies to spare parts, equipment and electronics.
.
The explosion of 3D printers is expected to shake up entire supply chains, allowing companies to print much of what they need rather than order it, often from overseas.
...
At the Munich show Electronica in November, Israeli start-up Nano Dimension showed how 3D printing would go well beyond making simple parts. The company’s desktop-sized Dragonfly printer can create multilayer printed circuit boards — the film-like boards found in smartphones and computers that allow signals and power to be transmitted.
.
Amit Dror, chief executive, says the 3D printing of circuit boards would boost the research and development process for prototypes, allowing electronics companies to bring new products to market faster.
...
“We think 3D printing will play a key role in changing the way the world designs and manufactures.”

Ontem no Twitter espantei-me com este tweet:

Scott @profgalloway at #DLD17: We don't need 3D printing, we have something called China.

— Anna Steiner (@EcoImQuadrat) January 16, 2017

A pessoa citada neste tweet não tem noção de que China e Impressão 3D são opostos de uma escala?

A China especializou-se em ser capaz de produzir de forma económica 1 milhão de itens iguais entre si.

A Impressão 3D vai permitir produzir de forma económica 1 milhão de itens todos diferentes entre si.

Trechos retirados de "Five industries under threat from technology".

Interação, relação e Mongo

Mais uma opinião em sintonia com o que escrevemos e defendemos aqui ao longo dos anos acerca de Mongo e da tendência para empresas mais pequenas, mais ágeis e mais apaixonadas:

"over the next 25 years, will likely mean that more and more large organizations, business models, and even governmental functions will be supplanted, evaded, or made irrelevant by self-organizing groups of individuals, connected ever more seamlessly by robust computer and telecommunications technologies.
...
no matter what your line of work is, and no matter how commanding a position your industry has today, every business still needs to be prepared for the consumer-led disruption of radical decentralization.
...
the best way to prepare for this disruption or nearly any other kind of technological asteroid strike, is to follow one or all of these three strategies:
.
Concentrate on earning the trust of your customers now, by constantly acting in their interests. When the asteroid hits, you need your customers to be on your side, wishing you well;
Deepen the context of your relationships with customers by tailoring each customer’s service to that customer’s individually different needs and preferences; and
Create a more frictionless customer experience by facilitating the disruption, rather than simply trying to resist it. You want to be Uber, the company, coordinating the interactions, and not just the highest-volume Uber driver in the new network."

 Recordar o recente "the relationship is the holy grail" e a ênfase que aqui damos à interacção.

Trechos retirados de "Radical Decentralization: Consumers Are the Ultimate Disruptors"

Os riscos da estratégia (parte IV)

Parte I, parte II e parte III.

"When most of us think of disruption, innovative firms like Uber or Airbnb come quickly to mind. However, strictly speaking, Uber, for example, is not a disruptive innovation. Disruption describes a process whereby a smaller player with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses. They do so by targeting overlooked segments, offering more suitable functionality (frequently at a lower price). Incumbents typically ignore this move, and eventually new entrants move upmarket delivering the performance customers require, while preserving the advantages (chiefly lower cost) that drove their early success. Technically, Uber did neither of these, but that certainly hasn’t stopped it from forever altering the taxi industry.
.
Rather than disruption, we could term the changes Uber and others are employing as “business model innovations,” but regardless of the terminology employed the fact remains, there are hungry (nay, starving) companies that you’ve never heard of,who are at this verymomentplotting to steal your market share. No industry is immune to this assault. Take shipping companies. They face a very unanticipated threat: 3D printing. As more manufacturers have the option to print parts and products in finished formonsite, shipments by air, sea, and roadway will plummet. It is estimated that as much as 41 percent of the air cargo business, 37 percent of ocean container shipments, and 25 percent of truck deliveries are vulnerable to 3D printing. Given the undeniable threat, it’s vital that organizations embrace agility and possess the ability to swiftly modify their business model based on new information."

Trecho retirado de "Objectives and Key Results: Driving Focus, Alignment, and Engagement with OKRs"

Um exemplo, tantas oportunidades

Um exemplo no artigo "He Went To The Desert With $3 Million In Cash—And Left With 150 Tons Of Cashmere".
.
Quantas oportunidades deste tipo, eliminação do intermediário que deixou de trazer valor à cadeia, existem por aproveitar, agora que o mundo é bem mais pequeno?

"They went to Mongolia and paid $31 for a kilo of cashmere, which is more than 50% more than other brokers, but they never resell the raw material. Instead, they bring it to factories in Italy, China, and even Mongolia to be milled and then turned into sweaters, hats, and gloves. They charge between $99 and $200 for 100% cashmere sweaters that are milled in Italy, which is significantly less expensive than garments of comparable quality from brands like Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli, or Portolano.
.
Over the last two and a half years, Scanlan and Rijsemus built a booming e-commerce business, but they discovered that there was also a demand for a wholesale business, where they could create and sell cashmere collections to retailers, sometimes under private labels. "We can get very good prices because we own the raw material and we can negotiate discounts at manufacturers by leveraging the cost of those law materials," Scanlan explains.
.
By cutting out the middlemen margins, they are able to make 79% profits on e-commerce, 60% on wholesale, and 40% on private label, which is significantly higher than industry standards. And this year, they will make about $6 million in top-line revenue."

"Amazon didn’t kill traditional commerce; it helped shift it"

Via @armando_moreira cheguei a "Fitness is getting disrupted?!?! Not so fast, my friend...":

"So yes, disruption is here and it’s real and it’s happening in a lot of industries.
.
But … the way we think about it is often wrong.
...
Some health club industry leaders will claim that nothing can replace human interactions, so clubs and trainers can’t be threatened by these new business models. I’d have to disagree. It is true that there is no replacement for human beings, but technology is enabling business models to do things in ways that humans on their own can not at scale.
.
Many of the most successful brands will blend human interaction with technology tools to create even higher levels of service -- and trainers can support hundreds of clients with a combination of digital and physical delivery.
...
By 2020, you’re going to see a global wellness community of over 1B on traditional brick-and-mortar health clubs, wearables, and apps. Each aspect of the ecosystem is going to inform the others. It’s not that MyFitnessPal or a newer, cooler FitBit is going to “kill” the traditional health club industry. It’s going to be a partnership where each side informs the other.
.
That’s what we often get wrong about disruption. Amazon didn’t kill traditional commerce; it helped shift it. [Moi ici: Recordar este exemplo recente] Uber hasn’t killed yellow cabs, but it’s made them think differently about their business models. When we view disruption in terms of “X will destroy Y,” we create fear-based, short-term thinking in traditional executives -- and that’s bad for everyone.
.
The fitness industry is about living your best life and being your best self -- with a few people making some money along that arc. There are disruptive technologies reshaping how the industry thinks about and presents itself, yes, but ultimately these technologies will help to create a massive global ecosystem rooted in an omni-channel approach to delivery."

Uma mensagem na linha da de Suzanne Berger em 2006:

“… there are no “sunset” industries condemned to disappear in high wage economies, although there are certainly sunset and condemned strategies, among them building a business on the advantages to be gained by cheap labor” 

Outro exemplo do ataque das fiambreiras

"Jobs [Moi ici: Jobs-to-be-done] can also help predict when an offering is likely to become unbundled. Clay uses the example of the New York Times, which at one point provided solutions to jobs such as looking for employment, selling your car, providing information about the weather, and of course providing news. When focused entrants such as Craigslist or Monster.com do those jobs better, more simply, or less expensively, the bundled offer starts to disintegrate."

Amanhã vou fazer uma apresentação para um grupo de empresas intitulada "Granel, fiambreiras e rouxinóis". A certa altura vou referir o exemplo de Bruce Jenner (aka The New York Times). Medalha de ouro nos Jogos Olímpicos de Montreal em 1976 no decatlo (uma disciplina para generalistas) com as marcas de:

• 10,94 s nos 100 m
• 15,35 m no lançamento do peso
• 68,52 m no lançamento do dardo

Entretanto, nos mesmos Jogos Olímpicos, os especialistas que ganharam a medalha de ouro tiveram as seguintes marcas:

• H. Crawford com 10,06 nos 100 m
• U. Bayer com 21,05 m no lançamento do peso
• M. Némete 94,58 m no lançamento do dardo

Muitas empresas, como relata o trecho com o exemplo do jornal, estão habituadas a serem generalistas. O problema é que cada vez mais aparecem empresas-especialistas, empresas-fiambreiras, as salami slicers que se especializam a servir um tipo específico de oferta para um segmento específico da procura.
.
E a sua empresa, é fiambreira ou generalista?

Trecho retirado daqui.

Underserved ou overserved?

A propósito de "Subir na escala de valor" e destes comentários:

"[Moi ici: Outra vez a disrupção? Agora a servir os underserved, ou os overserved? Talvez esta categorização aqui não funcione tão facilmente] "Consumers are embracing gadgets that do one thing well," said Hiromi Yamaguchi, an analyst at Euromonitor in Tokyo. "Larger appliance makers are selling products with too many functions, and not a lot of people use them."[Moi ici: "too many functions" parece significar overserved. No entanto, a substituição é não por um produto inferior que faz bem uma coisa, mas por um produto superior que faz bem uma coisa, e isso é "underserved"]"

Um artigo bem interessante, "Diagnosing Dislocation":

"Imagine that you run a large company, prominent in its industry, with a loyal customer base and strong profit margins. Suddenly, a new product comes along that threatens your existence.
...
new products and services can enter your market from other directions, each distinct in terms of how, where, and when it affects your business. These are market dislocations — radical breakaways from the existing market that occur when a company introduces a business model or a product that sits apart from those of competitors.
...
Then, of course, there are bottom-up dislocations, or disruptions.
...
incumbents need to recognize the distinctions among the various types of dislocations they may face. Disruptors typically first go after nonusers or the least profitable low-end customers. Only later do the disruptors start capturing an incumbent’s core customers.
...
New entrants coming from the side or from the top, meanwhile, go after an incumbent’s core customers right away — thus presenting a more immediate threat."

E porque não somos plankton (parte VII)

E porque não somos plankton (parte VI)

"Understanding why Dollar Shave Club was cheap means understanding why its blades are cheap, and understanding that means understanding just how precarious the position of P&G specifically and incumbents generally are in the emerging Internet economy.
...
For their part, Unilever is fortunate they don’t have a shaving business to protect, because being an incumbent is going to increasingly be the worst place to be. Dollar Shave Club’s motto may be “Shave Money Shave Time,” but just how many shareholders and policy makers are prepared for the shaving of value that this acquisition suggests is coming sooner rather than later?"

Uma conclusão que espelha uma reflexão feita neste blogue há muitos anos. Mongo não é um lugar bom para os gigantes, Mongo não é um bom lugar para os incumbentes. Incumbentes rimam bem com mass-market e mal com tribos aguerridas.
.
Só em 2016, escrevemos:

• Mongo não é um mundo gigantes-friendly (parte III)
• Decididamente Mongo não é para gigantes
• Acerca do futuro dos gigantes
• Mongo é uma espécie de final Cretáceo para os gigantes
• Acerca de Mongo
• Isto é poesia para quem acredita na vantagem de Mongo para as PME

Qual o perigo para a Unilever? Recordar "Quando Golias compra um David"

Trechos retirados de "Dollar Shave Club and The Disruption of Everything"

Para reflexão

- É a vida!

Frase que pode ser proferida quando um incumbente bem gerido (em termos de exploitation) é "eliminado" do mercado por um disruptor.
.
E quando um incumbente mal gerido, como a CGD, por exemplo, está tão concentrado a tentar sobreviver às consequências dos erros passados, os exageros do tempo das vacas gordas, que nem se foca na disrupção em curso?

"European banks need to drastically transform their business models to become sustainably profitable and earn their costs of equity. This report raises serious questions about the sustainability of current banking business models and offers three innovative strategic options for what traditional banks could become: platform banks, digital banks, or OEM banks — streamlined banks that emulate original equipment manufacturers.
...
Our team recently studied 46 European banks and found that only 10 achieved a positive economic spread in 2015, thereby earning their costs of equity. The remaining banks in our study showed significant gaps in profitability. Overall, the European financial institutions we studied accumulated an earnings shortfall of €110 billion (US$125 billion).
...
Platform banks: [Moi ici: Proposta de valor - Serviço] This model would be marked by open infrastructures and the assimilation of products from competitors and financial technology companies into a bank’s own offerings. The core competencies of platform banks would include customer relationship management and the anticipation of client needs, along with the maintenance of open product infrastructures. Digital banks: [Moi ici: Proposta de valor - Inovação] This model is characterized by extensive digitization of customer service as well as all downstream and back-office processes. Inspired by the product development approach of emerging technology companies, digital banks would be in a position to rapidly and efficiently respond to changes in customer or regulatory demands. OEM banks: [Moi ici: Proposta de valor - Preço] This model, inspired by automakers, calls for lean banks distinguished by a low degree of vertical integration. The traditional value chain would be dissolved and efficiency maximized by the integration of external vendors. Although no traditional bank has yet made the full transition to any of these new models, there are signs that some institutions are moving in."

Trechos retirados de "Strategy & European Banking Outlook 2016: It's time to radically rethink business models"

Ofertas antigas e mercados novos

"In The Innovator’s Dilemma, Clayton Christensen explains how incumbents actually pay a high price for actually doing a great job and constantly improving their technological offerings and creating overserved consumers.
...
Nonetheless, entrepreneurs looking to create a disruptive new business should not overlook underleveraged old technologies that just need a new use, and a new business model, to remain valuable.
...
Importantly, note how the basis of competition for Piql is functionality and reliability, not convenience or affordability. In this, Piql might look more like what today’s incumbents looked like when they started rather than a classical disruptor. Disruptors often do compete on convenience and affordability — the more affordable steel produced by minimills, for example, or the more convenient movie-delivery method of Netflix. Convenience and affordability are both important elements of disruption in existing markets where some customers are over-served, or you are trying to expand to non-consumers.
.
But to create new markets, disruptive entrepreneurs often overlook the possibility of emphasizing a different criteria. New-market disruptions go much further than incorporating non-consumers into an industry. They actually create a new nascent industry where before there was nothing, or just a few offerings that did not do the job very well. [Moi ici: Não consigo deixar de recordar o exemplo da artesã de Bragança, ou o denim japonês, ou o burel de Manteigas, ou ... ] And in this case, the basis of competition mostly favor functionality and reliability – these are usually the attributes of old technologies."

Recordar:

• Subir na escala da abstracção (parte II) (Dezembro de 2015)
• Autenticidade e empreendedorismo (Setembro de 2015)
• O que me fascina é a mudança (Maio de 2015)
• Não mudar de produto, mudar de mercado. Um exemplo (Fevereiro de 2015)
• Mais um exemplo positivo (Novembro de 2014)
• Mudar de prateleira, mudar de mercado, mudar de significado (Junho de 2014)
• A ironia da derrota do eficientismo (Abril de 2014)
• Outro exemplo de decomoditização (Janeiro de 2014)
• É exactamente o mesmo desafio da artesã (Dezembro de 2013)
• Uma perspectiva interessante (Fevereiro de 2013)
• Pós-geografia (Fevereiro de 2013)

Trechos retirados de "When Old Technologies Create New Industries"

Subir na escala de valor

No país onde "Japan flirts with helicopter money", acontece isto:

"Balmuda, a small appliance maker based in Tokyo's suburbs, has taken an ordinary kitchen appliance—the toaster—and turned it into a high-tech gadget. Using steam and carefully calibrated heat cycles, it transforms store-bought bread into something that smells, tastes and feels like it popped out of a baker's oven.
.
The toaster costs 24,000 yen ($230), or almost five times the price of a regular device in Japan [Moi ici: A isto é que se pode chamar o subir na escala de valor. A isto é que se chama concorrência imperfeita e um monopólio informal.] (the smaller appliances with doors and trays are the norm here, rather than the pop-up variety). With at least a three-month wait in stores, the gadget has become a quiet hit, even though the manufacturer hasn't bought ads or aired any commercials since it debuted in June—an unusual glimmer of innovation in a country that once wooed consumers with Walkmans, digital cameras and flat-panel TVs.

...
[Moi ici: Outra vez a disrupção? Agora a servir os underserved, ou os overserved? Talvez esta categorização aqui não funcione tão facilmente] "Consumers are embracing gadgets that do one thing well," said Hiromi Yamaguchi, an analyst at Euromonitor in Tokyo. "Larger appliance makers are selling products with too many functions, and not a lot of people use them."[Moi ici: "too many functions" parece significar overserved. No entanto, a substituição é não por um produto inferior que faz bem uma coisa, mas por um produto superior que faz bem uma coisa, e isso é "underserved"]

Interessante como tudo começou através do acaso, da exploration motivada por um piquenique afectado pela chuva.
.
Trechos retirados de "Meet Balmuda, the $230 Toaster From Japan"

O fecho de um ciclo

Há cerca de um mês coloquei a seguinte questão aos gerentes de uma fábrica de calçado.

- Não receiam que um dia um par de sapatos possa ser feito e vendido por um trabalhador a partir de casa? 

A resposta foi não porque serão precisas máquinas que eles não poderão comprar.
.
Não forcei o diálogo sobre o tema mas fiquei a pensar se não há alternativas para quem só faz uma dúzia de pares por mês. Até que ponto um dia teremos makerspaces com essas máquinas e que possam ser alugadas ao dia ou hora. Ou até compradas em regime de crowdfunding.
.
Voltei a lembrar-me da pergunta por causa de:

"A hundred years ago, though, customized clothing was the norm. Manhattan was sprinkled with little shops where middle-class families could have trousers sewn from scratch or bags hand-stitched by expert artisans. It wasn't until clothing companies moved toward more efficient and less expensive mass-manufacturing models that these workshops began to disappear.[Moi ici: A mass production não é uma resposta a uma necessidade humana, a mass production foi algo que foi imposto à natureza humana]
.
And now, a Manhattan-based startup called 1Atelier is redefining bespoke fashion for the digital age, combining old-fashioned craftsmanship and modern technology in ways that could signal the future of customization."

E por causa de adulto de cidade do interior que calça 35 me ter dito, esta semana, que várias sapatarias já se ofereceram para lhe fazer sapatos à medida.

"In the past, a client would need to visit a workshop to order a customized bag, but at 1Atelier, she can do everything online. The company's website allows customers to pick a style, then play with different colors and textures until they've dreamed up their perfect sack. The end product costs between $295 and $8,400, which puts the brand at the lower end of the luxury bag spectrum. But unlike Chanel or Céline, which requires six months or longer to ship a bespoke order, 1Atelier products are delivered to the customer in 21 days."

Assim como a disrupção clássica começa pelos overserved, julgo que podemos ver a produção do futuro, a produção de Mongo, a começar a disrupção da herança da Revolução Industrial, a herança de Magnitograd, pelos underserved.

"Offering a more complete customization experience, where the customer has a hand in the entire design process, presents a logistical challenge for big brands, whose supply chain and manufacturing networks usually span multiple countries. In 2011, for instance, Burberry offered a bespoke service that allowed customers to alter every aspect of its iconic trench coat, from the cut to the fabric to the color, for between $1,800 and $8,800. But when the service failed to be profitable, Burberry quietly shut it down in 2015 and launched a simpler alternative, the Scarf Bar, where shoppers can monogram their initials onto scarves for $475 to $995." 

Trechos retirados de "The Luxury Bag Brand That's Reinventing Made-To-Order"

"embracing self-cannibalization"

O meu primeiro superior hierárquico no meu primeiro emprego a sério, tinha pânico de fazer experiências em produtos que funcionavam.
.
A empresa fabricava um produto para uma marca de automóveis da gama média-alta há mais de 20 anos e nunca tinha mexido na receita. Em 20 anos muitos ingredientes novo tinham aparecido, com um desempenho técnico muito superior, mas ninguém estava autorizado a fazer mudanças.
.
Até que um concorrente alemão apresenta ao cliente uma versão muito melhorada do produto.
.
Pânico!!!

"What is the secret that allows these incumbents to fend off the startups aiming to displace them?
The answer is deceptively simple: embracing self-cannibalization. Self-cannibalization occurs when a company chooses to proactively replace one product or process with another that is potentially worth less. Forward-looking incumbents recognize the need to cannibalize their own products, rather than leaving it to other startups, who are more than happy to take on the challenge.
.
Embracing this approach isn’t easy – it doesn’t always seem natural to talk about how to replace profitable businesses. But there are four rules which can help managers of all walks of an organization instill the principle in their day-to-day work, in order to make self-cannibalization successful in the long run.
.
Rule #1: Get into the habit of setting up new business units that compete with the old
...
Rule #2: Find a balance between derivative products, platform upgrades, and breakthrough innovation
...
Rule #3: Create a bypass mechanism to pitch ideas to the top
...
Rule #4: Create a corporate goal with a percent of revenue earmarked to new products"

Trechos retirados de "The Best Companies Aren’t Afraid to Replace Their Most Profitable Products"

Mongo é uma espécie de final Cretáceo para os gigantes

"In the 21st century it’s harder for large corporations to create disruptive breakthroughs. Disruptive innovations are coming from startups
...
Startups have realized that large companies are vulnerable because of the very things that have made them large and profitable: by focusing on maximizing shareholder return, they’ve jettisoned their ability to do disruptive innovation at speed and scale. In contrast, startups operate with speed and urgency, making decisions with incomplete information. They’re better than large companies at identifying customer needs/problems and finding product/market fit by pivoting rapidly. Their size lets them adopt flatter and more agile organizational structures while providing incentives that reward risk-taking and collaboration.
.
Startups are unencumbered by the status quo. They re-envision how an industry can operate and grow, and they focus on better value propositions. On the low-end, they undercut cost structures, resulting in customer migration. At the high-end they create products and services that never existed before.
.
As we’ve seen, corporations are very good at maintaining, defending and refining existing business models, and they’re pretty good at extending existing models by identifying adjacencies. But corporations are weak, and have become weaker, in identifying new disruption opportunities."

Trechos retirados de "Intel Disrupted: Why large companies find it difficult to innovate, and what they can do about it"