Sep 192007
 

An interesting interview with Professor Stephen P. Bradley on the Harvard Business Review web site, about his research for a forthcoming book titled Broadband: Remaking the Advertising Industry.

The background to the research:

We are looking at industries that are being transformed by broadband such as the news and information industry-the younger you get, the more you get your news strictly online. Who reads newspapers? Old guys. So this is an industry that is being dramatically transformed.

As broadband enables new forms of entertainment and new ways to consume and manage media we see radical transformation in the music and television industries as well. Their audiences are fragmented and people are demanding mobility, immediacy, and control over their media consumption.

This makes some industries’ traditional business and delivery models no longer viable. The networks, for instance, struggled with a time-shift in television viewing as digital video recorders (DVR) became commonplace. With broadband they must now also contend with a place-shift. The family no longer sits in the living room together with all eyes focused on the television.

But this is the key observation made in the article (and one that I fully agree with):

Advertising companies have been transformed because they are now media companies. The dollars they receive from their overall media businesses are much higher percentages compared with the pure advertising portion of it. It’s the connectedness between the traditional ads and online that counts. In the online world you can link your advertisements to action; that’s the difference. If you’re willing to click, it links you to a potential transaction or at least to get more information, which can then pull you in further. The ease of broadband gets people much more integrated and interactive, much closer to doing a transaction.

A very worthwhile read.

Sep 182007
 

My 5th Tenet of Entrepreneurship is: Ideas are WORTHLESS. I’ve had a number of debates over the years about the value of ideas. As I wrote in my original Tenets article:

Ideas are worthless. Knowing what to do with those ideas – how to implement ideas, how to monetise them, how to drive them from an ephemeral, nebulous concept to a concrete solution/product/service is where value is created.

Reaction to this statement has been mixed. Probably the most succinct statement of the position of those that disagree was provided by Beth Carvin (an I-Entepreneur subscriber) in issue #4 of the discussion list: “This is a famous myth, IMHO. It’s what the people who steal ideas like to say.”

The way I try to explain my reasoning in support of the tenet goes something like this:

Imagine that you’re an inventor who just thought of a way to convert sand into gold. How valuable is that idea? You’re probably thinking billions! Trillions! Now imagine you never actually do anything about the idea. You don’t write it down. You don’t tell anyone. Soon, you forget all about it. How valuable is that idea now?

Alternatively, let’s say you, in fact, write down your idea. You know there’s a metallurgists conference coming to town, so you decide to make your big announcement there – that’ll generate some attention. So you pop along to the conference (uninvited). You bluster into the main hall, push aside the keynote speaker and yell “Eureka! I can turn sand into gold”. Silence. Then laughter. “Where’s your proof?’ , someone yells. “Who are you? You don’t look like a genius chemist”, yells another. “What have you been smoking?”, comes another retort.

Absolutely discredited, no scientist on Earth would touch you now – but you don’t have the skills to develop your idea without them. How valuable is your idea?

The point the above scenario tries to make is that thoughts and ideas have no value unless they are converted into some form of reality and acted upon. An idea that remains in your head is worthless. Further, unless you can harness the right resources – money, skill, people etc. – no idea, no matter how brilliant, is of much value.

Each step you take towards turning your idea from a nebulous concept to a concrete product or service – such as successfully obtaining a patent or producing a prototype or testing the market’s interest – increases the value of your idea, as you are reducing both technical risk (i.e. validating your idea’s efficacy) and market risk (i.e. documenting customer need/demand).

But taking your idea from the nebulous to the concrete is no guarantee that it will be of value – or, at least, the value that you ascribe to it.

One of the fundamental problems inventors and, to a degree, entrepreneurs encounter when seeking to sell or license an invention (in the case of an inventor) or secure funding (in the case of an entrepreneur) is differing perspectives of the “value” of their idea, invention or business. There are myriad methods of valuing inventions and ventures – some more art than science!

Sep 172007
 

Here is one school of thought you’re unlikely to have heard of, but it is one that you should definitely acquaint yourself with.

TRIZ (pronounced TREEZ) is the Russian acronym for ‘Theory of Inventive Problem Solving’. It is an algorithmic (that is, process-based) approach to problem solving and innovation that eschews the notion of creativity-based innovation, which is often personality-dependent, unreliable and unrepeatable.

TRIZ was invented by Genrich S. Altshuller. Altshuller analysed thousands of worldwide patents covering a range of engineering fields. He then analysed the solutions detailed in those patents that were, to his mind, the most effective. This analysis led him to theorise that the most difficult engineering problems involved fundamental contradictions, and that most solutions were trade-offs.

Furthermore, he discovered that the same fundamental solutions were being used over and over again to address different problems.

The TRIZ literature provides this example:

On the surface, there appears little connection between these problems:

- Removing the stems and cores from peppers
- Cleaning air filters
- Unpacking parts wrapped in protective paper prior to assembly
- Splitting cracked diamonds along microscopic cracks

Yet a similar solution was invented for each problem: placing the object in a high-pressure chamber, slowly increasing the pressure within the chamber and then suddenly dropping the pressure, creating a pressure differential between the inside and outside of the product, resulting in an “explosion” that split the product.

This ‘invention’ appeared at different times and in different fields. Each “inventor” could have saved considerable time and effort if s/he’d been aware of the earlier invention. But, due to knowledge barriers between the various disciplines, they were none the wiser.

Altschuller theorised that knowledge about the inventive process could be extracted, compiled and generalised to such an extent that it would be accessible to any inventor in any field.

Before we look at Altschuller’s theory in more depth, first some terminology:

Everything that performs a function – be it a car or an elevator or a pocket knife – is a ‘technical system’. Technical systems may be comprised of one or more subsystems. For example, a car is comprised of an engine, chassis, steering mechanism etc. Each of these subsystems is a technical system unto itself (with its own series of subsystems) and performs its own function. For example, the brake system in a car is a both a subsystem (within the car) and a technical system (it is, itself, comprised of multiple subsystems – brake pedal, cables, pads etc.).

All subsystems within a technical system are interconnected within the bounds of that higher technical system (or ‘supersystem’). It follows that changes to one subsystem can produce changes to the supersystem. For example, modifications to a car’s engine can affect its aerodynamics. Greater speed generally requires a larger engine, which adds weight and bulk, thereby deteriorating the car’s aerodynamics.

TRIZ conceptualises technical systems using the ‘Law of Ideality’, which posits that, during the lifetime of any given technical system, it will become more “ideal”. Each time it is improved, it tends to become more reliable, simple, effective, smaller, cheaper – more ideal. Today’s cars, for example, are better than the original Model T Ford by orders of magnitude.

Technical systems, then, can be judged according to their ideality. The further they are from their ideal state, the more complex they are, and vice versa.

Another example from the TRIZ literature: Say you’re an abattoir in South America that wants to ship meat to North America. To conform with food safety requirements, you must freeze the meat during transport. Consequently, you install freezer compartments in your cargo planes. However, as competition increases, you need to cut costs. Solution – carry more meat on each flight. How? Remove the freezer equipment. As the plane normally flies above 15000 feet (where the temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit / 0 degrees Celsius), no refrigeration is needed.

Innovation, then, can be described as the process of removing barriers to ideality by qualitatively improving the underlying technical systems.

The crux of the dilemma, however, lies in improving technical systems (this is where it gets interesting!).

Improving a particular characteristic of a given technical system (weight, colour, speed, strength, durability etc.) will usually result in the deterioration of another characteristic of that system. For example, increasing speed generally requires a reduction in weight, which, in turn, can adversely affect durability.

A solution that involves a change to one characteristic, therefore, would result in a sub-optimal (deleterious) change to another characteristic.

As a result, most inventors would consider a compromise solution – one that, for example, generates a slight increase in speed but only minimally affects durability.

A truly breakthrough solution is one that resolves this contradiction.

TRIZ is based on a series of 40 ‘inventive principles’ that can be used to create solutions that resolve these contradictions. Absolutely fascinating stuff!

So what is the practical benefit of all this theoretical stuff?

Most entrepreneurs don’t invent – they simply look at how things are currently done and innovate to do them better. TRIZ provides a process-based framework for analysing the “pain” inherent in your opportunity and innovating a better solution. You literally don’t need to be a rocket-scientist to build a better rocket.

Further resources:

Altshuller Institute

Technical Innovation Center
The TRIZ Journal
InnovationTriz Papers

Sep 132007
 

Contrary to popular belief, entrepreneurship is not grounded in random acts of inspiration.

Entrepreneurship is process-based. Certainly, there is often a “light bulb” moment of blinding insight that kick-starts an individual’s journey into entrepreneurship, but the path always follows the same, 6-step process:

Step 1. Identify an opportunity

As highlighted by Tenet #4, opportunities are abundant. Importantly, the ability to “spot” opportunities is a learnable skill – the more you practice it, the easier it gets.

How do you identify an opportunity? The easiest method is to look for “pain” – inconvenience, unnecessary expense, market “friction” etc. – and solve it.

How do you spot “pain”? Here are some things to look for:

* Market gaps – Gaps arise where there is an unmet need/demand for a product or service. Some entrepreneurs specialise in introducing new products/services into one country that are considered common place in another.

* Unfilled demand – A related approach is to look for demand that is not being adequately met due, say, to a supply shortage, and create or import products/services to meet the demand.

* Build a better mousetrap – Many entrepreneurs have made their fortunes perfecting imperfect products/services. Ray Kroc didn’t invent hamburgers but he, in conjunction with the McDonalds brothers, perfected – and franchised – the hamburger business. Howard Schultz by no means invented coffee, but he, through StarBucks, revolutionised how people consume it.

* Make it cheaper – You may not be able to improve a product/service, but perhaps you can deliver it cheaper, faster or more conveniently. Michael Dell didn’t invent the PC, but his direct-to-customer business model re-invented how PCs are sold. Herb Kelleher, a lawyer with no aviation background, saved SouthWest Airlines by completely revamping the way it did business.

* Cross-pollinate – Ideas or solutions long considered “old hat” in one market sector may totally revolutionise another. The pizza industry changed virtually overnight when Dominos adopted the policy of guaranteeing the delivery of its pizzas within 30 minutes after studying the techniques of other time-sensitive businesses, such as FedEx.

* Follow the trends – Few societal changes happen without warning. Futurists, trend forecasters/analysts and social researchers (such as  anthropologists) produce a wealth of research/opinion that can be used as a “map” to potential future scenarios.

Step 2. Evaluate the opportunity

This is probably the key step in the process. Failing to correctly evaluate an opportunity could see you discard potentially lucrative opportunities or (in some ways, worse) invest time/money/effort in dead-end “opportunities”.

Opportunity evaluation requires the consideration of a range of issues/criteria, such as:

- How well does the opportunity “fit” with your specific skills and experience?
- What potential does the opportunity represent?
- How risky would the venture be?
- What sort of resources (money, time, manpower, office space, equipment etc.) would be required?
- Is the risk v. reward ratio agreeable?
- Are there any competitors?
- If so, how would they react to your venture?

The foremost consideration is, of course, whether there is a market demand (or need – not the same thing) for the product and, if so, how large the demand/market is and how you will reach that market.

Determining answers to these issues can require considerable time and research, but it doesn’t pay to cut corners.

The initial research can be done sitting in front of your PC. Data such as market size, annual revenues, primary competitors, market trends, regulatory requirements etc. are readily available from public and private sources. Use Search Engines to locate Web sites offering competing products to determine their pricing, quality and other features.

However, you do need to do some ‘field’ work. You need to literally ‘touch’ your market: identify your target market (i.e. customers) and talk to it. If you plan to sell your product to, say, truck drivers, be sure to interview a number of truck drivers to ascertain the level of interest in the product. Listen very carefully to any feedback you’re given on what features/benefits the consumer is looking for in such a product. Speak to other market participants – competitor or otherwise – to get the ‘big picture’ of the issues at play within the market.

Step 3.    Innovate to fulfil the opportunity

Once you’ve identified the opportunity and researched/documented its potential, the next step is to develop the product/service required to take advantage of the opportunity.

You don’t have to do all the work yourself – or any, for that matter.

You can retain contract designers/manufacturers, hire or partner with one or more individuals with the skills/knowledge the venture requires, outsource product design/manufacture etc.

Step 4.    Marshall suitable resources – time, money, people, plant, equipment.

This probably constitutes an entrepreneur’s core “skill” – being able to marshall resources additional to those within the entrepreneur’s immediate control. It is also arguably the most testing and arduous part of the entire process.

Only a lucky few entrepreneurs have the necessary money, time or skills to fulfil identified opportunities. The rest need to develop plans for obtaining required resources.

This could range from borrowing a modest sum of money from friends and family etc. to structuring a joint-venture arrangement with several parties willing to contribute resources, and managing the often conflicting demands/interests of the various parties involved.

Step 5.    Assume necessary risks – financial, psychological, social.

Entrepreneurship is not without risks. As we will see in the next segment on Tenet #3, entrepreneurs are not – despite popular belief – risk takers. Entrepreneurs are risk managers.

Skillful entrepreneurs analyse every facet of their planned venture and carefully develop risk-minimisation strategies.

Step 6.    Reap rewards – independence, personal satisfaction and wealth.

Central to entrepreneurship is wealth creation, and through wealth comes independence (financial and otherwise). Importantly, in pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities, individuals also generate “external” wealth, through the economic stimulation the venture creates.

Sep 122007
 

Interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald today that confirms the Dunbar number (which I referenced in an earlier post titled Social networks – chasm ahead!) is alive and well in the realm of social networks.

According to the article, which touches on the research of Will Reader, an evolutionary psychologist at Sheffield Hallam University:

Other studies have shown most people have about 150 people in their extended networks, with just a small number considered a member of the inner circle of close friends, Reader said.

Even when people’s social networks ballooned into many hundreds or more than a thousand people, the number of close friendships did not change, he said.

Sep 092007
 

The first Tenet of Entrepreneurship posits that ANYONE can become an entrepreneur; that is, entrepreneurial skills, traits and tendencies are not innate, but rather are learned.

Entrepreneurial tendencies etc. are influenced by a number of factors, including:

Personal values/characteristics

It is impossible to provide a universal characterisation of the “entrepreneurial type”. Entrepreneurial tendencies recognise no cultural, social, political nor temporal boundaries. Indeed, history is replete with examples of entrepreneurs springing from all walks of life, in all industries, with varying motivations and degrees of success.

Some generalisations can, however, be drawn. Entrepreneurs tend to be achievement-oriented, revel in taking responsibility for projects and decisions and have a distinct dislike for work involving repetitive tasks. Entrepreneurs embrace change, as they realise that with change (even chaos) comes opportunity. They revere flexibility, individualism and opportunism.

Childhood environment / role models

Numerous studies have explored the implications of ‘birth order’ (i.e. first born, second born etc.) on entrepreneurial abilities. It is commonly believed that, as first born children receive special attention (enjoying, as they do, a ‘monopoly’, if only short-lived, on their parent’s time), they therefore build greater self-confidence. However more recent studies offer contradictory conclusions.

The employment history of a child’s parents is a confirmed influence – a disproportionate percentage of entrepreneurs have self-employed or entrepreneurial parents (especially fathers).

Even where parents are not self-employed or entrepreneurs themselves, parents that encourage independence, achievement and responsibility tend to instill the desirability of entrepreneurial pursuits in their children.

Other role models – siblings, relatives and other entrepreneurs – are also important influences, especially where they play a mentoring role during and after the launch of the business.

Education

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that entrepreneurs tend to be less educated than the general population. Almost everyone has a story to tell of a self-made businessperson that dropped out of school early and went on to earn his or her fortune.

However, this is by no means the “norm”. Education is important for successful entrepreneurship, as it helps entrepreneurs deal with the challenges and obstacles they are likely to encounter along the way.

A formal education is by no means necessary, but it certainly helps, especially where it is related to the entrepreneur’s future endeavour.

Age

Most entrepreneurs embark on their entrepreneurial careers between the ages of 22 and 45. Certainly, individuals have launched their first entrepreneurial endeavour outside this age bracket. They are an exception to the rule, as entrepreneurs require a degree of experience, financial backing and sheer energy not often found outside this group.

Some research has shown that there are “milestone” ages – 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 – at which entrepreneurs are most likely to start their first endeavour (a case, perhaps, of “it’s now or never”).

Experience

Prior entrepreneurial experience(s) clearly plays a role.

Many entrepreneurs become “serial entrepreneurs”, launching or buying a number of businesses, which they may own one at a time or sequentially. In doing so, they apply learnings and insights from previous ventures to new ones, gradually perfecting their techniques and approaches to creating successful ventures.

The earlier in life you gain entrepreneurial experience, the easier it seems to be to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities. For instance, many an autobiography shows successful businesspeople emerging from humble backgrounds and applying fundamental business lessons learned from their adolescent newspaper rounds or lemonade stands.

Market knowledge

Many entrepreneurs get their start after spotting a potential opportunity in the context of their former field of employment (such as an opportunity or niche not currently exploited or adequately serviced by their employer). Having “inside knowledge” of the market, its dynamics, consumer requirements, competitors etc. allows them to “hit the ground running”.

In other cases, training/experience within a specific field can be a hindrance, blinding all but the most creative and open-minded to non-traditional methods of solving problems. Many entrepreneurs spot opportunities in fields unrelated to their training/background because they are able to examine problems free of industry “dogma” and/or because they are able to bring a different approach/skillset to the problem-solving process.

Work history

Dissatisfaction with paid employment is certainly a prime motivator for would-be entrepreneurs. However, work history plays a more important role, as the technical and other skills gained while employed play a key role in the success or failure of an entrepreneurial endeavour. Experience in areas such as finance, marketing, distribution and product/service development gained while employed will stand an entrepreneur in good stead.

Government policy

Governments can play an important role in stimulating entrepreneurial activities.

At a micro-level, they can provide entrepreneurial support programs (such as free business skills courses, advisory/mentoring services etc.) and funding agencies.

At a macro level, many governments around the world are introducing legislation to ensure that government-funded R&D labs and universities pursue the commercialisation of their research, either through startups or by licensing/selling intellectual property to entrepreneurs.

Sep 072007
 

William Gibson, a science fiction author best known for his book Cyberpunk (in which he first coined the now familiar term “cyberspace”) wrote: “The street will find its own use for things”.

I have always taken that to mean that consumers, not manufacturers, are the final arbiters of how a technology or product will be used. Technology/products released for one purpose will invariably be used for unanticipated purposes. No boardroom, no posse of engineers or market researchers, will ever completely anticipate what uses consumers will find for their technology or products.

In fact, history suggests engineers and entrepreneurs alike are distinctly bad at predicting uses:

- The telephone was originally conceived as a means of “piping” opera into living rooms.
- Super glue was originally intended as a replacement for sutures
- The Web was invented to allow research scientists to share research papers.
- “Soap opera” TV shows were originally devised as advertisements (literally) for soap and washing products.

There is nothing wrong with this lack of “foresight”. After all, that is the very nature of innovation – you can’t predict it (if you could, it wouldn’t be innovative!).

The take away message here is that no one should constrain their innovations with preconceptions of what the market wants or how consumers will use a technology/product. Equally, the innovation doesn’t stop when a technology/product is released – often that is where the true innovation begins!

Sep 062007
 

Years ago I read an anecdote in a Jay Abraham book that had a formative effect on how I view innovation and opportunism. I managed to track it down:

Two men were mugged. Neither one was harmed.

Mugger No.1 took the man’s wallet and all his cash – $85. Mugger No.2 took the other man’s wallet and cash, $70, plus his watch and his Princeton class ring. The watch and ring were not expensive and had no real street value.

Ordinarily, that would be the end of the story.

But, two days later, man number two walks out of his New York City apartment on his way to the office. He hears someone calling his name. He turns, and there is the man who mugged him, smiling and not at all threatening.

Mugger No.2 asks the man if he would like to get his watch and Princeton ring back. As both items held great sentimental value to him, he said yes. The mugger offered to sell them back for $500. The man only had $90 with him. The mugger accepted the $90, but instead of returning the watch and ring, he gave the man a receipt from a pawnshop. Later that day the man went to the pawnshop and paid $80 to reclaim his watch and ring.

Mugger No.1 made $85 cash. Mugger No.2…made $70 on the mugging, $80 by pawning the watch and ring, and $90 by selling the pawn ticket. Total income: $220.

Now, rest assured I’m not advocating mugging people (literally or otherwise). This story exemplifies how the same “transaction”, when viewed through entrepreneurial eyes, can be leveraged to reap greater rewards.

Sep 062007
 

Many years ago (2002 to be precise), I was moderator of an email discussion group called I-Entrepreneur (published by Adventive, now sadly no longer with us).

Given entrepreneurship is a subject close to my heart, I thought I’d trawl the archives for some ‘nuggets’ to re-post here, which I will do over the coming weeks.

I kicked off the discussion (well, it was more of a debate) on I-Entrepreneur by articulating what I saw were the 5 Fundamental Tenets of Entrepreneurship.

Contrary opinions are welcome!

—8<—

There are five fundamental tenets of entrepreneurship:

1) Entrepreneurs are MADE, not born.

Everyone has it within them to be an entrepreneur. Some people are naturally entrepreneurial, others need to work at it. Entrepreneurial tendencies are influenced by a number of factors, including:

    – education
    – training
    – experience
    – role models
    – market knowledge
    – government policy
    – financial situation

You don’t have to be an inventor or naturally innovative to be an entrepreneur. You can learn how to innovate/invent.

2) Entrepreneurship is a PROCESS, not a single inspired act.

Contrary to popular belief, entrepreneurship is not grounded in random acts of inspiration. Entrepreneurship is process-based. Certainly, there is often a “light bulb” moment of blinding insight that kick-starts an individual’s journey into entrepreneurship, but the path always follows the same, 6-step process:

    – Identify an opportunity
    – Evaluate the opportunity
    – Innovate to fulfill the opportunity
    – Marshall suitable resources – time, money, people, plant, equipment.
    – Assume necessary risks – financial, psychological, social.
    – Reap rewards – independence, personal satisfaction and wealth.

3) Entrepreneurs are not risk takers, they are risk MANAGERS.

Many individuals eschew pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities, because they consider themselves to be risk-averse, whereas entrepreneurs are promoted as fearless risk takers.

True entrepreneurs are not risk takers, they are risk managers.

Entrepreneurs work diligently to identify and then reduce the risks associated with their endeavour. They take educated risks.

However, it is true that entrepreneurs must ultimately accept the risk of failure.

4) Opportunities are ABUNDANT.

Central to the entrepreneurship process is the identification of opportunities that can be profitably exploited.

Finding opportunities is both an art and a science – an art, because success often lies in intuitive guesses; a science, because opportunities can be spotted using rational, systematic methodologies.

Each of us encounters potential opportunities regularly – even daily – yet we often fail to recognise them because we are not “tuned” into spotting them. In fact, given that we live and work in environments teeming with “information overload”, we often actively (sub-consciously) filter out important information that could provide the genesis of an opportunity.

Finding potentially profitable opportunities requires that you be more aware of the world around you. Look for “pain” – problems, inconveniences, sudden crises etc. – that can be remedied through innovative problem-solving.

Find a “pain” that you can solve and chances are you will find many customers happy to pay you to solve it.

5) Ideas are WORTHLESS.

The last tenet is by far the most controversial: Ideas are worthless.

Ask any inventor or budding entrepreneur what they think their ideas are worth and you’ll receive estimations ranging from thousands to millions of dollars. Unfortunately, they are invariably wrong. This misconception is probably the single largest hurdle in the entrepreneurial process.

Ideas are worthless. Knowing what to do with those ideas – how to implement ideas, how to monetise them, how to drive them from an ephemeral, nebulous concept to a concrete solution/product/service is where value is created.

Thomas Edison, perhaps the most renown inventor, said it best: “The value of an idea lies in the using of it.”

Edison was the consummate inventor. He was, somewhat ironically, a decidedly average entrepreneur!

Sep 062007
 

History tells us that it is rare indeed that a single individual will come up with a totally new idea that leads to innovation (even Newton is purported to have needed a bit of help in the form of an apple). Innovation is more likely to arise from the recombination of existing ideas in novel ways or in different contexts, such as applying ‘tried and true’ practices from one industry to another.

Recombination of this type is only possible if ‘innovation elements’ – ideas, people and organisations – are given an opportunity to interact with one another. Diversity of people, thoughts and interests are the lifeblood of the innovation process.

Ok, that all makes sense – but why bacteria?

It is the biological realm of bacteria that provides the best ‘entrepreneurial’ example of how to crank up the innovation process.

Bacteria breed – recombine – every 20 minutes. That’s three generations – three spins of the evolutionary wheel – per hour. But this amazing recombination rate doesn’t fully explain bacteria’s evolutionary resistance – or should that be persistence!

Bacteria is in a constant state of evolutionary flux. It achieves this by a process known as ‘lateral gene transfer’, which is a really technical way of saying that your typical, garden-variety bacteria is an evolutionary kleptomaniac.

Bacteria excel at stealing useful genes from other organisms. How they do this provides a ready reckoner for entrepreneurs looking to obtain ideas from other industries to provide an innovation breakthrough.

Bacteria can ‘acquire’ gene sequences through:

- Conjugation (that is, physical contact with the host of the soon to be acquired cells),

- Transformation (picking up DNA that has been abandoned by another organism)

- Transduction (where the bacteria replicates itself inside the other organism, bringing with it random DNA fragments).

The business equivalent of conjugation is getting out an mingling with people who are “different” to you – who work in different industries, have different interests, hobbies and perspectives. Transformation, of course, can happen when we study business history, learning how other companies, markets or industries grew and flourished. Finally, there is transduction, which is the equivalent of bringing an “outsider” into your company for a new perspective.

What strategies do you have in place to mimic bacteria?