Alex Osterwalder and I have been exchanging e-mails on the subject of business models. Alex's blog
is devoted entirely to this subject, and the graphic above is his
'business model model', showing the nine 'building blocks' for such
models from his synthesis of reading on the subject. The right side of
the model is about how the business generates revenue, while the left
side is about how it manages costs and hence generates profit.
I've
been advising clients and prospective new businesses how to document
and evaluate their business model for years, and in my experience there
are three types of business models, that organizations look at in
sequence:
- Viability Model: How the idea/project/plan/business will make money, and with which partners. In some cases it is actually about How the idea/project/plan/business will fill an untapped need,
and with which partners. Such a model outlines the research that will
be done to ensure the value proposition is compelling (i.e. customers
want and are prepared to pay for it), that the business has, or can
acquire, the competencies and resources needed to deliver it, and that
it makes strategic sense for the organization (e.g. it's consistent
with their mission and values and does not cannibalize existing
business). This model culminates in a go/no go decision.
- Formation Model: How the idea/project/plan/business will be set up.
This model is focused on capital and infrastructure that must be in
place before operations can begin: human capital (what people will be
involved in what roles), intellectual capital (what knowledge,
technology and know-how must be put in place), physical capital (what
premises, equipment and supplies will be needed prior to start-up),
financial capital (start-up money, and where it will come from), and
social capital (organization, alliances and relationships that will
drive it). This model culminates in a launch.
- Operating Model: How the idea/project/plan/business will operate. This model describes the ongoing
activities of the organization or project -- what megaprocesses it will
entail (e.g. R&D, purchasing, sales & marketing, manufacturing,
distribution, service, back office support, and management decision
making), what budgets and other resources it will require and use, and
what roles will be played by who.
This sequence of models can apply to anything from a simple marketing program to the launch of an entirely new business.
It's been my experience that most businesses put insufficient work into the viability assessment, the wrong kind of thinking into the business formation decisions, and too much
emphasis on the details of the operating model, and hence on
'micromanaging' the operations to ensure they conform to the operating
plan.
The reason for insufficient work on viability assessment
is that it's tedious, and the people who are championing the idea have
already concluded that it's viable. That's why in Natural Enterprise I
encourage an almost excruciating amount of attention and research on
viability up front, tough, shoe-leather-wearing work with potential
customers, suppliers and partners until you know that it fits a need,
that you have the competencies to fill that need, and that you have
some competitive advantage in doing so.
If that time and
effort is invested, the whole approach to business formation changes.
The people and partners who will play the key roles will already be
onside and will have essentially self-selected to play those roles.
Much of the start-up capital may come in the form of advances from
customers who have already indicated an interest in the product or
service, and who have been active partners in its design. The total
amount of capital will be less, capital needs will be rather obvious,
and may be already forthcoming, if the viability assessment has been
done well first.
At this point, I think, trust takes over. You
have the right people in the right places. They know what they have to
do and how to do it. They're motivated, and focused on the customer.
Why do you need an elaborate operating model at this stage? Not only
will it be telling people what they already know, it will be getting in
the way of them doing their job effectively, by imposing the inevitable
standards, paperwork, and approvals procedures. And worst of all, it
will discourage improvisational thinking and continuous sustaining and
disruptive innovation, and will be contributing to what David Ehrenfeld
calls "a society managed to death".
So the business models I have
helped develop have been heavy on the Viability phase, creative in the
Formation phase, and light on the Operating phase. The hardest part is
telling entrepreneurs, before they've laid out a penny but after
they've invested a lot of sweat equity, that the Viability assessment
indicates they don't have a sound business model. More often than not,
that's the right message, and failure to heed it is the main reason for
the staggering failure rate of entrepreneurial enterprises.
But
giving them that message at the outset is a lot easier than telling
them, after spending years of effort trying to make a flawed business
model work, and investing their life savings in it, that they should
pull the plug.
[I'm in San
Jose at the KMWorld & Intranets conference, and for the next two
days I'll be blogging about what I think are the highlights of the
conference, and also including my own (two) presentations, on Social
Networking and Personal Knowledge Management.] |
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
