Startups are not smaller versions of large companies, but interestingly we see that companies are not larger versions of startups.
I've been spending some time with large companies that are interested in using Lean methods. One of the conundrums is why does innovation take so long to happen in corporations? Previously Hank Chesbrough and I have written about some of the strategic issues that impede innovation inside large corporations here and here.
While they both emphasize getting out of the building and taking to customers, they're not the same. Here's why.
Urgency Drives Innovation SpeedStartups operate quickly - at a speed driven by the urgency of a proverbial gun-to-their-head called "burn rate." Any founding CEO can tell you three numbers they live and breathe by:
- the amount of cash left in the bank
- their burn rate (the amount of money they're spending monthly minus any revenue coming in) and
- the day they run out of money and have to shut the doors (or get a new round of funding.)
If you're a founder, there's a constant gnawing fear in the pit of your stomach that it will all end badly; running out of money, having to fire all your employees and failing publicly. (Whoever says, "Failure feels OK in startups has clearly never run a startup.)
A startup CEO adroitly translates this urgency to their employees not with reminders of "we'll all soon be out of jobs," but with a bias to action - making measureable progress in getting minimum viable products in front of customers, beating competitors, getting users/customer quickly, and generating revenue. Startups build a culture of commitment and drive to make things happen.
In large companies, the employees are no less smart, but the organization is optimized to deliver repeatable products, revenue and profits. To support this, its corporate culture is dominated by process, procedures and incentives. In large companies, even the most innovative projects (whether it's process innovation, continuous innovation or disruptive innovation) are not going to make or break the company - and employees know it. Canceling a project may frustrate the team members working on it but unlike in a startup, the still have their jobs, offices and houses and the company won't close. Attempts to instill urgency via a gun-to-the-head philosophy are frowned on by Corporate HR. All of this adds up to a "complacency culture" rather than an "urgency culture."
Customer Development versus Design Thinking
This real sense of urgency--and how it shapes employee attitudes and practices - is a big reason why innovation processes in startups are different from those in large companies. One of these processes is how startups versus companies learn from customers. It's the difference between Customer Development versus Design Thinking.
Customer Development and Design Thinking share similar characteristics in exploring customer needs, but their origins, differences and speed in practice are very different.
I invented the Customer Development process trying to solve two startup problems. First, most Silicon Valley startups were (and primarily still are) technology-driven. They are founded and funded by visionaries who already have products (or product ideas based on technology innovation) and now need to find customers and markets. (Think of the early days of Intel, Apple, Cisco, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) Second, burn rate and dwindling cash meant startups had to find these customers and the attendant product/market fit rapidly - before they ran out of money. These two characteristics- a technology-driven product already in hand and a need for speed- drove the unique characteristics of Customer Development. These include:
- Moving with speed, speed and did I say speed?
- Starting with a series of core hypotheses - what the product is, what problem the product solves, and who will use/pay for it
- Finding "product/market fit" where the first variable is the customer, not the product
- Pursuing potential customers outside the building to test your hypotheses
- Trading off certainty for speed and tempo using "Good enough decision-making"
- Rapidly building minimum viable products for learning
- Assuming your hypotheses will be wrong so be ready for rapid iterations and pivots
Design Thinking also focuses on understanding the needs of potential customers outside the building. But its motivations and tactics are different from those of Customer Development. Design Thinking doesn't start with a founder's vision and a product in-hand. Instead it starts with "needs finding" and attempts to reduce new product risk by accelerating learning through rapid prototyping. This cycle of Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation is a solutions-based approach to solving customer problems.
Design Thinking is perfectly suited to situations where the process isn't engineering-driven; time and money are abundant and the cost (and time) of a failure of a major project launch can be substantial. This process makes sense in a large company when the bets on a new product require large investments in engineering, a new factory or spending 10s or 100s of millions on launching a new product line.
But therein lies the conundrum. Because of the size of the dollars at stake (and your career), lots of effort is spent to make sure your understanding of the customer and the product is right. At times large companies will drag out these design-thinking investigations (prototype after prototype) for years. Often there is no place where urgency gets built into the corporate process. (Just to be clear this isn't a failure of the process. Urgency can be built in, it's just that most of the time it's not.)
Both Models Work for Large Companies
There is no right process for all types of corporate innovation. In a perfect world you wouldn't need Customer Development. No corporate R&D would happen before you understood customer problems and needs. But until that day, the challenge for executives in charge of corporate innovation is to understand the distinction between the two approaches and decide which process best fits which situation. While both get product teams out of the building the differences are in speed, urgency and whether the process is driven by product vision or customer needs.
In one example, you might have a great technology innovation from corporate or division R&D in search of customers. In another, you might have a limited time to respond to rapidly shifting market or changing competitive environment. And in still another, understanding untapped customer needs can offer an opportunity for new innovation.
Often I hear spirited defenses for Customer Development versus Design Thinking or vice versa, and my reaction is to slowly back out of these faith-based conversations. For large companies, it isn't about which process is right - the reality is that we probably haven't invented the right process yet. It's about whether your company is satisfied with the speed, quality and size of the innovations being produced. And whether you're applying the right customer discovery process to the right situation. No one size fits all.
There's ample evidence from the National Science Foundation that Customer Development is the right process for commercializing existing technology. There's equally compelling evidence from IDEO, the Stanford D-School and the Biodesign Innovation Process that Design Thinking works great in finding customer needs and building products to match them.Lessons Learned
- Customer Development and Design Thinking are both customer discovery processes
- Customer Development starts with, "I have a technology/product, now who do I sell it to?"
- Design Thinking starts with, "I need to understand customer needs and iterate prototypes until I find a technology and product that satisfies this need"
- Customer Development is optimized for speed and "good enough" decision making with limited time and resources
- Design Thinking is optimized for getting it right before we make big bets
Steve Blank's blog: www.steveblank.com