Searching for the winning strategy of product creation – guided by Sun Tzu and Donald Norman
(published 26.10.2014)
“Rapidity is the essence of war.”
(Art of War, chapter XI)
The Art of War, attributed to Sun Tzu, was written 2000-2500 years ago in China. The book became the definitive work on military strategy and tactics. Later it has become one of the classic platforms also for business strategy.
Donald Norman has written several books on usability and user experience and he is one of my favourite great thinkers in this millennium.
The messages of Sun Tzu and Donald Norman are fundamentally similar: timeless and pragmatic. I encourage you to read their texts yourself.
If you haven’t yet read the Art of War, you may want to follow the following links.
- Generally about the book The Art of War, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War
- For English translations of Sun Tzu’s texts, see for example
http://suntzusaid.com/ or
http://www.base.dk/microbase/philosophy/suntzu/1.estimates.htm or
http://www.base.dk/microbase/philosophy/suntzu/2.wagingwar.htm
About Donald Norman’s books, see http://www.jnd.org/books.html
- Below I refer to Don’s article http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/why_doing_user_obser.html originally published in Interactions 2006
For busy readers, here’s the bottomline:
Whether a war campaign or a product development project, the benchmark strategists manage them similarly. The winning strategies and tactics are universal.
To win, be prepared
Both Sun Tzu and Don Norman emphasize the necessity of understanding the goal and the path before marching ahead. Both also emphasize that if you have already started a project, you must complete it as soon as possible.
Once your project army starts marching towards the goal, you’ll have a race against time. Your army should be running as fast as they can – not stop for scouting.
Many UX practitioners have (sadly) believed in a guidance repeated in litterature: “Once you have started a product project, then go and study users’ needs.” Too many warriors have witnessed that this guidance was a dangerous trap.
I let Don and Sun Tzu explain.
Don:
“The more I examine this issue, the more I think that it is we, the Human Computer Interaction community, who are wrong. Let’s face it: once a project is announced, it is too late to study what it should be. We need to discover what users need before the project starts.”
Sun Tzu:
“War is (…) a matter of life or death, the road either to survival or to ruin. Hence, it is imperative that it be studied thoroughly.
“A speedy victory is the main object in war. If this is long in coming, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. If troops are attacking cities, their strength will be exhausted. When the army engages in protracted campaigns, the resources of the state will fall short.”
“Thus, while we have heard of stupid haste in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged. There has never been a protracted war, which benefited a country.”
Those decision-makers who have read their Sun Tzu or Don Norman – or learned this in their own battles – know the winning strategy. It has two phases:
Be continuously aware of the potential needs in your target area.
When a need arises, be sure you are among the first ones
to notice and understand it. Then start the needed product project.
Any competitor might be doing the same: thus now focus on speed.
The first one in the battle field will take the best positions:
customer minds, leading brand, iconic product, premium price.
If you fail in either phase, you are likely to lose.
Sun Tzu:
“Generally, he who occupies the field of battle first and awaits his enemy is at ease, and he who comes later to the scene and rushes into the fight is weary.”
I have seen several product concepts that had been ultimate market leaders if the concept had turned to the final product within a few months. In a product project the primary enemy is time. Only if you win that challenge, you get the chance of fighting against competitors. If the project takes too much time, competitors occupy the battle field. You lose the war without anyone even noticing you.
Please comment. Any thoughts?
Next time when I return to this book, I plan to focus on the factors of winning strategies, quoting further the advises of Sun Tzu. To be continued in… about 2016. In the meanwhile, I’ll be preparing on a new war to win with my colleagues at Kemppi.
(excerpt from a comment that I wrote later 15.11.2015)
Of all the ideas of Sun Tzu, the strategy of “be so well prepared that you always win” may be among the most questionable. If you don’t dare to take risks, you cannot enter new places or try new methods. If you never fail, you are not pushing to your limits. Innovation management underlines the necessity of trying new directions and unseen combinations.
Would Sun Tzu sail to blue oceans? Would he just balance between scouting the mountains or becoming the red admiral of the known waters? Anyone feeling familiar enough with models by Kim & Mauborgne, please contribute.
(next part added a year later, 25.11.2015)
Peace is stronger than war
I just had a good discussion with Ville Eloranta (Doctoral candidate at Aalto University) and Leena Ilmola-Sheppard (Senior Research Scholar at IIASA) who both study systems of co-operation. We are all aiming at new business ecosystems that would share more value for all stakeholders, rather than compete on the old red oceans.
Shortly, the meta-strategy is to move from wars to peace and co-operation.
“Business is cooperation when it comes to creating a pie,
and competition when it comes to dividing it up.
This duality can easily make business relationships feel paradoxical.
But learning to be comfortable with this duality is the key to success.“
(Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1998)
(and for the next three paragraphs, thanks Ville for sharing your thoughts and readings)
Warfare and strategic aggressive actions have strongly influenced the modern strategic discourse.
Bold and aggressive moves have been seen as the default recipe to success, and the sustainability of competitive advantanges seem to have disappeared. (see e.g. D’Aveni, 2010). You must quickly eat your lunch before someone else grabs it (e.g. Nault and Vandenbosch, 1996). Strategic speed and surprise have been the most valued characteristics.
On the other hand, the newest strategic research has started to emphasize collaborative models as the basis of competitiveness (e.g. Chen and Miller, 2015; Kapoor ja Lee, 2013). The change is more fundamental than just highlighting the alliance strategies (e.g. Zaheer et al, 2000). In 1998, Shona Brown and Kathleen Eisenhardt renewed strategic thinking with their book Competing on the Edge – Strategy as Structured Chaos. They launched the concept of Co-Adaptation. Now after 20 years, co-adaptation is still discussed as the desired future of actual company strategies.
The metaphor of war works well when the focus is in protecting or re-shaping the sources of competitive advantage. But what is the corresponding metaphor for the seek of competitiveness through co-adaptation in the world where organisations unite to enlargen the cake? Already a few posts ago in October 2014 (seen comments below), Harri Klemetti proposed Love to replace War.
Here’s my first attempt to form the new metaphor:
Expedition. Adventuring into places where nobody has even been. To succeed in an expedition, what do you need? Collaboration, co-adaptation (A team with diverse enough skills, knowledges and experiences to cope with anything unexpectable) and mutual trust (The survival of each team member depends on all others).
The world of new business ideas, new products and new markets is at least as endless as the world of undiscovered jungles and deserts was a couple of centuries ago. No matter which direction you go, there is room for any team that is brave enough to take the challenge. And if by accident you would encounter another team in the jungle, that would only be a positive surprise. The teams might save each other’s lives by sharing the information and resources they have.
To have a successful expedition that finds a new success business, we must in advance learn about everything that we might face, without knowing precisely what that coud be. We must team with brave companions who are not afraid of the unseen, and then move on together, sharing the knowledge to whoever we might meet on the way, and communicate the discoveries to the wide audiences that could share the benefits and support our efforts.
And now, having turned all upside down, I must admit that Sun Tzu’s and Don Norman’s principles still apply, only some wordings may change. Preparing oneself for an expedition must be done just as carefully as for a war campaign – and even more, I would say. Be prepared. Is this the ultimate condensation of all strategies?
Let’s see how Robert Baden-Powell himself explained the meaning of “Be Prepared” originally in the 3rd part of ‘Scouting for Boys’:
BE PREPARED means you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your duty.
Be Prepared in Mind by having disciplined
yourself to be obedient to every order,
and also by having thought out beforehand
any accident or situation that might occur,
so that you know the right thing to do
at the right moment, and are willing to do it.
Be Prepared in Body by making yourself strong
and active and able to do the right thing
at the right moment, and do it.
Thinking of my old times both in the army and in the scout treks, the critically needed knowledge and skills were surprisingly close to each other. The differences were in the conceptual framework. In warfare and traditional competitive strategies, you take over land or pieces of a pie to increase your own share on cost of the others. In expeditions, scouting and co-adaptive strategies, you create new land and pies, and you may invite even more people to share them.
At first sight, traditional competitive strategies are zero-sum games. At closer look, they are negative-sum games. The efforts wasted to overlapping projects and defensive actions are all wasted work from the system viewpoint. In collaborative games, we play positive-sum games: The co-operation’s outcome could be decades larger than the sum of single stakeholders working separately.
At the end, we seem to find, once again, the very traditional dichotomy of structuralism and humanism. Some think whatever one gets is somehow away from others. To rule this game, there must be an effective system that just needs to wipe out other systems. Others think that we are all single individuals, and the life is based on continuous value increase. In this game, people can by co-operation fulfil each others’ needs most effectively.
Feel free to comment. Your comments will appear here, delayed by just a manual check
to filter out the spam sent by non-humans.
Damn, scooped again. That Sun Tzu, shows up everywhere. Steals my best ideas. Is there no defense? Sure, I know what Tzu would say: “The best defense is offense; Exploit your competitors weaknesses, go around their strengths; Control the ground and the plan: don’t let your opponent dictate the terms of battle.”
Wait, didn’t i say that in Chapter 7 or 8 or something (of the revised DOET): to win, don’t copy, differentiate. If your marketing people make a list of features and want you to boost your weak ones — don’t: Boost your strong ones. boosting the places you are weak is playing your competitors game. Boosting your strong points to be even stronger is adding differentiation, changing the rules of the game to favor your strong points, which is how to win.
Yeah, Tzu and I: we actually would make great teammates. Tzu has one great flaw however: he died.
Don
You sure would make an unbeatable pair.
Some claim that Master Sun only lived in stories. If so, he might be immortal.
In an e-mail a few days ago I pondered whether Sun Tzu is a spime: an object that can have physical incarnations. However, I now withdraw that suggestion:
A spime can tracked through space and time throughout its lifetime and reincarnations. The wisdom of Sun Tzu is stronger: like an object that can not just reincarnate but also replicate itself, gradually spreading all over the space.
Very interesting topics. I tried to rapidly analyze them a bit further.
1. Awareness of needs
The awareness being described requires sensitivity – the ability to spot changes or opportunities while they emerge, before the others – studying the world with an open mind. I suspect this sensitivity might be based on intuition; requiring subconscious past experience (of many things) and a curious mind to connect the seemingly unconnectable.
Sensitivity might be fueled by courage without pride – enabling some individuals to challenge the status quo in a humble way. Meanwhile perceiving oneself as an expert might actually prevent this optimistic and humble curiosity to keep learning more.
Another viewpoint on this awareness is not actually opportunistic – but more a proactive one. It might be called ‘fitting’ like Markko Hämäläinen did in his excellent dissertation work last week.
Some part of the emerging opportunities is already happening, and the entrepreneurial minds spot them; they apply their past skills on it and in the process, change the need (the world). So, they do not just spot a new need, nor do they create it. They do both, with enthusiasm. Not because of an artificial need to be innovative, but because of an inner motivation to solve meaningful things and keep learning while doing so.
2. Speed of execution
Might be a good next topic to look at how organizations could achieve that speed – and what is preventing them in most cases?
Fear might play an important role? Fear of making a mistake freezes people, preventing them from learning. Thus, they are left creating endless research and more reports to prove starting something new is essential. Losing time.
To maximize the speed, probing and testing of ideas should be encouraged. Failing early is cheap and helps guide the curious teams towards the winning concept as they learn about the new needs and solutions for them.
“Large projects tend to fail: Software, construction, new aircraft, it doesn’t matter — they fail. Dan Ward offers a simple solution: don’t do them. With the time and money allocated for one large project, do numerous small ones. Do them Fast and Inexpensive, with Restraint and Elegance” – could not agree more on this one with Donald.
Another major player in downgrading speed is lack of focus in organizations. Peter Drucker said ‘Time is the scarcest resource and unless it is managed nothing else can be managed’. Yet, at the times of major global changes in every business, the stagnant management tries to manage change by adding more control, more trivial tasks and reporting, destroying focus and motivation.
In a startup, nobody can afford to lose focus: the users, the product; the core of the business.
1) Awareness of needs:
Thanks Mikko, the model from Markko Hämäläinen indeed fits here. Quoting Markko, the “need of fit means that entrepreneurs want to engage in activities that suit them and partially define who they are.”
“Choose your battles wisely” advised Sun Tzu. “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” (Art of War, Chapter III) Replacing the military terms by business English, Sun Tzu’s receipt was this:
To reduce your business risks towards zero and still grow successfully, do the following: Always have a thorough and fresh SWOT analysis of yourself. Combining that with good knowledge of competitors and the possible arenas of competition, you can focus to start only such activities where you are superior. Following this strategy, you win again and again.
2) Speed: Fully agree that this topic is worth a separate discussion. Added to backlog 🙂
What if war is the wrong metaphor?
I’d try love, how to win the hearts of your beloved one(s), in a situation of rivalry, not war. 😉
Excellent, Harri – I was waiting for someone to question the claim, and you did it in a lovable way.
Users may love a product, and lovability can increase a product’s competitiveness. Love has surely more power than an army. But using love as a project metaphor… I seem to have a mental challenge. Could someone build further on this? Provide a link?
My quick thoughts did not get too far:
Love can be an emotion, a state, even an attitude. It refers usually to a relationship but it can be also a virtue: human kindness, the concern for the good of another. As a function, love keeps human beings together and facilites the continuation and development of our society and the species of human beings. So, could we consider love as a driving force (among others) behind human actions: a reason for starting wars or creating products?
Apple is (currently) worlds most valuable company. Is Apple fast? Is Apple first?
Is Apple best?
Perception is reality.
br,vikki
Thanks to Vikki, we moved a step ahead in the eternal sequence of create (theory) – observe (see the reality) – evaluate (did the theory explain the reality) – redefine (change and improve the theory).
I guess Vikki wrote a wider question between the lines: Does the model of Sun and Don apply to Apple? Anyway, I take the question as it is: Was Apple first, fast, best?
Apple was not the first in computing, nor in personal computers or laptops or mobile phones or music business. Thereby we might not call them fast in any of those fields.
Apple has chosen its battles carefully. They waited for others to create solutions to spread over new terrains, they watched where others made mistakes and also where others did well. Then they picked up an area where no-one else had gone, and conquered it.
The American television commercial “1984” was shown only twice. On January 22, 1984, during Super Bowl XVIII, that ad changed the computer markets. Starting the sales on Jan 24th with about $3.5 million worth of Macintoshes, it was clear who is the new respected leader of the industry.
Apple moved the computer business to a new arena and took it over because there was nobody else there. User-friendly computers. Enabling you to do what you want to, instead of requiring you to learn.
Apple focused on customer feelings and needs whereas their competitors lived in the world of technical specifications. Apple engineers were not the inventors of mouse or graphical user interface – the Xerox engineers had done that years ago. But Apple handed over the mouse to the rest of us. Until that, the whole target population of computer business consisted of computer nerds. Yes, Apple was the first. But were they fast? I don’t know, I wasn’t watching their work.
Anyway, being “fast” is not the keyword to start with. It is important to observe, learn and get ready. Then, when you find the place that is worth conquering, you are so well prepared that you can win the war fast. And as you are the only player, you win it on the same second you enter the arena. Apple moved to a blue ocean not served by others. And what was it? The world of consumer needs and emotions.
Who is first? The one who does something before others do. All of us do every day something nobody else has ever done before. All the companies do something first. But only the future will show, which ones of all these “first things” become worth remembering.
Who is fast? The one who moves rapidly from one position to another. Has Apple done that? No. They have valued continuity of building the same mountain on which they stand. Occasionally they added a new product. I haven’t worked for Apple R&D, haven’t met Steve Jobs either. Those who have, claim that their policy is to keep developing until the product is superior, instead of developing and launching it fast. Even the hidden details are crafted beautifully, for the sake of perfectness.
And finally: Who is best? That’s a sentence with a missing part: best of what. I believe we are all best in something. To win the game, you just need to choose the right game. And hereby I seem to be back to the message of Markko Hämäläinen quoted by Mikko Kämäräinen above.
Now the conclusion. I am not sure if Apple was generally fast. But yes, when Apple acted, they moved fast. No, Apple was not first. But they became the first. No, Apple is not the best in aeronautics or welding. But yes, this MacBook Pro under my fingers was the best choice for me.
Did Steve Jobs do what Sun advised? Yes. Choose the right battles.
But who decides which are the right battles and why they were won? The historians.
Apple II showed 24 lines by 40 columns of monochrome, upper-case-only text. A friend of mine, Olli-Pekka Rinta-Koski, had one. At that time I thought the device was too complex. Anyway, it became a success product, boosted by its colour graphics capability. Later, the much more advanced NeXT did not sell much. The only NeXT I have ever touched was in the same bookstore from which I bought the Competitive Advantage that appears in the opening post.
But then again, was NeXT a mistake? NeXT’s software is the basis of OS X — and therefore iOS. Now running OS X on my laptop, the heritage of NeXT is alive.
Of all the ideas of Sun Tzu, the strategy of “be so well prepared that you always win” may be among the most questionable. If you don’t dare to take risks, you cannot enter new places or try new methods. If you never fail, you are not pushing to your limits. Innovation management underlines the necessity of trying new directions and unseen combinations.
Would Sun Tzu sail to blue oceans? Would he just balance between scouting the mountains or becoming the red admiral of the known waters? Anyone feeling familiar enough with models by Kim & Mauborgne, please comment.
While waiting for that, thinking of the history of Apple reminded me of a question that Mike Markkula asked long ago. That will be the starting point of another post. To be published some other day…
Pingback: About this blog | Experiences by Jussi