Most, if not all, startup home-runs did NOT solve a big problem for a big market

Please listen here first:

 

 

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market, they…

actually diminished a SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION for a big market. 

It turns out, solving a BIG PROBLEM and diminishing a SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION have very little in common. 

The way to find each is totally different, the way to deal with each is totally different, the way to go to market is totally different.

Different starting points, different strategies, totally different outcomes. A radical departure from Marketing 101.

Solving a problem makes the current better, while diminishing a limitation makes the new possible. Making the new possible ( as do ’emerging new market category startup kings’) tend to gravitate most (up to 75%) of the market capitalisation, and that is why they dominate the home runs. 

No alt text provided for this image

If this is correct, this fundamentally changes the early-stage venturing and investment game forever!

THE BOTTOM LINE:

DIMINISHING A SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION IS NOT EQUAL TO SOLVING A BIG PROBLEM…

In fact, a significant limitation, is considered a fact of life, to the extend that the market doesn’t even know they can complain about it. It’s not a problem!. 

The definition of a SIGNIFICANT LIMITATION is:

(a) A ‘basic necessity’ with (b) an ‘inherent insufficiency’ that (c) forces ‘the adoption of a coping way’, as formulated by the authors.

  • The UBER example:

Before UBER, people (a) ‘have to find a taxi’, without (b) ‘the driver and the passenger knowing about one-another in real-time’, forcing people to (c) ‘cope by going to common physical taxi locations, where there is a higher chance to find one another’.

The UBER application diminishes the limitation, the (b) in the statement above, meaning the market does not need to cope like (c) anymore, and a new market category emerges, by default.

  • The Early Stage Venture Investment example:

Early stage investors (a) ‘have to make a decision to invest’ without knowing (b) ‘if and when the start up will takeoff (uncertainty)’, forcing investors to cope by (c) ‘betting on a portfolio of extraordinary entrepreneurs with clearly differentiated products solving a big problem for a big market’.

Every early-stage investor will tell you, the earlier you invest, the higher the level of uncertainty, in other words (b) – it is NOT a problem (they will tell you), it is a fact of life (the essence of a limitation)! 

Implications of the new intel (the intel that diminishes the above-mentioned limitation for early-stage investors):

The new intel enables answering two critical early-stage startup questions, for investors: 

1. Is success objectively one of the potential outcomes (~10%) 

2. Can one systematically improve the probability of success (from ~10% to the ~90%)?

TMARA has developed reliable processes (‘THE INTEL’) to find, co-create and fund startups that diminish significant limitations, as this intel represents the market’s ‘first principles’ which govern its adoption of new innovations.

We have also built a portfolio of startups, each having diminished a significant limitation for their markets, and hence facing shelf lives of 20 plus years…

TMARA engages with early-stage investors looking for opportunities to invest in these type of ‘new’ class of high-value/de-risked startups. 

Other topics by TMARA, include :

Stop turning friends and family into fools:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stop-turning-friends-family-fools-anthony-nathan/

HOW to know, IF and WHEN a startup will reach Product-Market Fit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-you-could-reach-product-market-fit-pmf-anthony-nathan/?published=t

The primary cause of startup failure:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simply-true-anthony-nathan/

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/non-consensus-piece-info-changes-game-early-stage-venturing-nathan/

Please make contact with us at www.tmaragroup.com

(c) Copyright protected 2019 TMARA

No alt text provided for this image
/by

Know IF, and WHEN, you could reach Product-Category Fit (PCF)

TMARA brings the new science of Product-Category Fit (PCF) to Consilience Ventures UK

Product-Category Fit (PCF) can be measured, and should be measured on an ongoing basis.

Do you have PCF or NOT? (See the test below)

If NOT, then allow TMARA to see IF and WHEN you could reach PCF. 

Engagement Process: 

The startup must first test their own PCF current-reality, ideally showing:

A market-related compound revenue growth rate, and

A suitably high Word-of-Mouth density.

If the startup does not pass the PCF current-reality test, TMARA has a roll to play, as follows…

TMARA completes a scientific PCF analysis, to determine if the startup has the DNA to reach PCF, in other words, that success is a possible outcome.

A PCF path of success is then presented to the founders, and upon agreement the PCF test program begins, as follows:

No alt text provided for this image

1.   Viable Market Category Target

·     Test 1: Category Test (Validate there is a big enough, clearly identified target market)

·     Test 2: MUST-HAVE Test (Validate that the innovation can become a MUST-HAVE, in other words, reach PCF in the target market)

2.   Viable Market Category Product

·     Test 3: 10X Technical Test (Validate the feature set can perform to the MUST-HAVE spec)

·     Test 4: Value Rule Test (Validate customers are able to realise the full value)

3.   Viable Market Category Offer

·     Test 5: Guarantee Test (Validate that the offer, a value guarantee, hits the market’s sweet spot)

·     Test 6: Conversion Rate Test (Validate the value guarantee offer, results in a consistently high sales conversion rate)

4.   Viable Market Category Traction

·     Test 7: Ignite Test (Validate that a promotional event ignites the attention of the target market, to the degree that the startup is recognised as the emerging new market category king)

·     Test 8: WOM Test (Validate that Word-of-Mouth has become more effective than self-promotion and PMF has been reached)

PMF Program Rules:

  • The program is managed test by test.
  • Each test is scoped and resourced
  • Each test must be completed within a reasonable time line
  • Success criteria are agreed before starting each test
  • Test results are captured in a way that supports the next funding /testing rounds
  • Failure to pass a test will be investigated to see if a fatal flaw has been identified. 
  • Strict adherence to the following guiding rule: Do not predict the winners (those that can reach PCF), allow the test to reveal the winners.

Success is defined as:

The startup has reached PCF by successfully passing all 8 tests

Became a market MUST-HAVE in a big enough market

An agreed minimum valuation

Attracted Series A investment.

**************************************************************************More topics by TMARA

Heavenly angel investors now test for product-market fit before investing:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/heavenly-angel-investors-now-test-product-market-fit-before-nathan/

Stop turning friends and families into fools

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stop-turning-friends-family-fools-anthony-nathan/

HOW to know, IF and WHEN a startup will reach Product-Market Fit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-you-could-reach-product-market-fit-pmf-anthony-nathan/?published=t

The primary cause of startup failure:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simply-true-anthony-nathan/

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/non-consensus-piece-info-changes-game-early-stage-venturing-nathan/

www.tmaragroup.com

(c) Copyright protected 2019 TMARA

/by

Stop turning friends and family into fools!

Please listen here first:

 

SON: Dad, I can feel world domination is around the corner for my startup, I need another $250k though – the market will start to pull soon, I just know it!

DAD: Son, that’s what you said for your last 2 investment rounds – you seem to be in the Valley of Death, with no market to speak of? How do I know you’re truly sitting on a home-run?

SON: Dad, I have an idea that will break our “conflict” constructively. Let’s run my innovation through a Market Category Generator, a.k.a MCG, where you can then fund in smaller increments, and only to the extent my new product passes each of their 8 co-creative Product-Category Fit tests. We can use the tests as objectivemarket validation for your next investment.

DAD: Sounds like music to my ears. What is the MCG ’s definition of a home-run , and what is their test journey all about?

SON: An MCG home-run is, what they call, an Emerging New Market Category King, with an agreed minimum valuation (on reaching Product-Category fit inside the MCG), and the test journey to that result, is called the Product-Category fittest process. It’s essentially a process of elimination, that produces home-runs, and rejects (fails) startups where a home-run is shown to be unlikely.

DAD: That means I can just fund the tests, only if your innovation keeps passing them, and I can stop, if you don’t? And once you’re a proven home-run, I can make my actual investment then? (YES, says SON) I’m in!

SON: One more thing Dad. There is one condition, apparently we both need to adopt a new way. We both need to stop predicting if my innovation will be a home-run or not, and rather allow the co-creative Product-Category Fit tests to reveal the outcome – its the guiding condition of all those entering the MCG.

DAD: That’s a deal my son, where can I learn more….

SON: To learn how early-stage venturing and investments are being democratized, and turning ordinary investors (Friends and Family) into expert investors, please watch this video Dad, and be prepared for 19 mins of deep worthwhile learning…

DAD: Let’s make contact with www.tmaragroup.com and see how to join theirMCG, to assess the innovativeness of your new product, and that we’re really sitting on a home-run!

Note to reader: If the roles apply, please substitute ‘DAD‘ with ‘LEAD Investor’, and ‘SON‘ with ‘Innovator / Entrepreneur‘ , and read the above conversation again, when you get a chance.

Other topics by TMARA, include :

HOW to know, IF and WHEN a startup will reach Product-Market Fit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-you-could-reach-product-market-fit-pmf-anthony-nathan/?published=t

The primary cause of startup failure:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simply-true-anthony-nathan/

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/non-consensus-piece-info-changes-game-early-stage-venturing-nathan/

No alt text provided for this image

(c) Copyright protected by TMARA 2019

/by

Fewer Failures do not mean More Winners! (for Start Ups)

One line summary: 

Today the start-up world is slave to a financial system seeking to reduce their failure rate, but not necessarily increasing the rate of real winners (home-runs)……..how do we stop this insanity?

Clue:

Change the focus (and techniques) from failure avoidance, to success creation!!!

 

Please listen here first:

 

 

The Detail

Most of the attention in the early-stage venturing and investment world, is aimed at reducing the rate of failure, while very little is aimed at creating more home-runs. When you set your objective, you also set the limit to what you can achieve. In other words, when you set the objective to reduce the probability of failure, it does not automatically translate into creating more winners.

A number of home-runs (those reaching a billion $ valuation in a very short period of time) fuels a state of euphoria. Just the thought of it, draws the attention of many around the globe. With more and more money flowing towards this fountain of potential, more and more, people want to test the odds. The downside is plain and simple – you lose your money!

With an ever-growing level of attention, it was just a matter of time for the system to recognise its own limitation, as the extremely poor odds of picking winners. There are just too many external factors affecting the outcome, for anyone to pick only winners.

The next step was unavoidable. Along with this realisation, came the rules of the game. Naturally, the first objective was to find a way to reduce the downside, to ensure you can stay in the race for a little longer. This objective primarily came from those with the money, and less from those with the ideas, consequently, like the old saying teaches– “The one who holds the gold, makes the rules”.

The objective was quickly turned into a practical mechanism to reduce the failure rates, and over a relative short period of time, the system adopted the new rules. Every possible technique and method, which could assist turning the objective into a practical mechanism, was evaluated and tested, and the best practices were adopted.

Today, the main driving force comes from concepts like LEAN, Agile, Boot camps, Bootstrap, etc. These concepts were further popularised by support from the main educational intuitions, by adding them, and adjusting their curriculums accordingly.

The end result is a system reducing the failure rate, but not increasing the rate of real winners. The system is now a slave to its own objective, and blind to the true potential.

To quote one of the main LEAN thought leaders, Steve Blank; “While some adherents claim that the lean process can make individual start-ups more successful, I believe that claim is too grandiose…I can make a more important claim: Using lean methods across a portfolio of start-ups will result in fewer failures than using traditional methods.”

Should inventors and entrepreneurs be slaves to an investor-based objective and subordination rule? Should entrepreneurs lose their own identify for the sake of extending their runway, and keeping their hopes alive? Nothing is solved, by having an objective that does not focus on removing the limitation of the system, but accepting it and thus casting it in concrete, by getting the system to adopt local optimisation rules, through creating false expectations and general popularisation.

To make the point: Ask anybody in favour of these concepts, if they would guarantee anything, and if so, what? You will get one long lecture, but no substance and certainly no guarantee!

How do we stop this wave of insanity? How do we get back on track, and set the objective towards creating more winners? Just remember there are too many factors influencing the outcome, to be able to always pick a winner. This problem is only applicable to an investor who does not understand what the entrepreneur is creating, and the value it will contribute, to its market. Do entrepreneurs have to accept the same fact, that there are too many factors influencing the outcome?

Getting back to the objective of creation (to improve the probability of creating more winners). This is the right objective – it focuses on global optima, and not local optima, like the current one. In the world of global optima, there is no room for lack of understanding the underlying principles, or what Elon Musk calls – first principles. The following is an attempt to bring together the few principles that will enable us to not just explain the world of the inventor and entrepreneur, but also to understand how to leverage it towards improved probabilities.

Where everybody aims to create less start up failures, the following two principles aim to create more winners! These principles originate from both the Theory of Constraints, and the Theory of Evolution. 

Principle 1 = Innovation (Technology) can bring benefits for a market, if and only if, it removes a significant limitation for the market.

  • Note: Please do appreciate the unique FOCUS that is brought by the word limitation (if a significant limitation is removed, it will bring substantial second order benefits – uncontested market space), and at the same time, it nullifies the local optima that are associated with trying to solve known problems or satisfy known needs for the market (small insignificant first order benefits – competitive market space)! Every single major invention in the history of our world, removed a significant limitation for this world – a limitation previously accepted as a fact of life. There is an infinite source of limitations hiding behind people accepting it as a fact of life.

Principle 2 = Innovation (technology) is necessary but not sufficient, the market must adopt new rules to realise the full benefits that emanates from the removed limitation.

  • Note: Evolution taught us that it is those that can adapt by adopting the new rules the fastest, that survive – same for any market for which you have removed a significant limitation – the market will have to adapt by adopting new rules, before it will be able to realise the full benefits. Very few new inventions come with the new rules. Too many neglected to change the old rules, causing the people or market, to behave as if the limitation still exists!  

In combination, these two principles can logically explain, virtually everything in the start-up and innovation space, and provide a real base for reasoning upwards! This is potentially taking what Peter Thiel is saying, one step further (the creation of zero to one)!

www.tmaragroup.com

Copyright © TMARA 2022

/by

Heavenly Angel Investors now test for product-market fit BEFORE investing.

Hey Pete,

Angel investors like you, need to make a decision very early in the game, without knowing IF and WHEN, the start-up will take-off – a.k.a reach Product-Market Fit.

In spite of this uncertainty, you make these bets because getting in early and being right means big-time rewards.

However, you currently cope with the uncertainty, by investing in a portfolio of great jockeys, in the hope of at least 1 home-run for every 20 bets. You’re in good company though, because the Silicon Valley icons also yield to these odds…because they too, just don’t know which one(s) will reach product-market fit.

Now let’s see if there is another way to tip the odds in your favour – maybe 1 in 3, by adopting a testing process that assesses and affects product-market fit.

Crack this, and your new rule becomes:

…”I test all my start-ups for product-market fit 

BEFORE

investing!”

But how’s this possible? 

Current LEAN best practice takes an MVP and searches iteratively for the market (most fail).

The new science however, does the 

OPPOSITE…

It starts by locating the illusive sweet spot in the market, and then pulls the MVP towards it, through the product-market fit test process. 

The solution is housed in an entity called the Market Category Generator (MCG), which generates demand, by reaching product-market fit in a new market category, hence the name Market Category Generator.  

Upon reaching product-market fit, the start-up attracts Series A investment, and can go on to build a viable business.

So the MCG’s offer to you Pete, is to bring your start-up prospects to a local MCG, in order to test and validate product-market fit before investing. 

So powerful is the process, that if the start-up passes the Product-Market Fit test series, the MCG will guarantee an agreed min. Series A valuation, and we can even co-invest along-side you.

So please let’s chat before making your next heavenly angel investment…

www.tmaragroup.com

More topics by TMARA

Early-stage investing is a matter of focus

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/early-stage-investing-matter-focus-anthony-nathan/

Stop turning friends and families into fools

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stop-turning-friends-family-fools-anthony-nathan/

HOW to know, IF and WHEN a startup will reach Product-Market Fit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-you-could-reach-product-market-fit-pmf-anthony-nathan/?published=t

The primary cause of startup failure:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simply-true-anthony-nathan/

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/non-consensus-piece-info-changes-game-early-stage-venturing-nathan/

/by

Early-stage investing is a matter of focus!

VC Rookie: I see our portfolio of early-stage investments are in a myriad of industry and market sectors, as well as in both physical and digital solutions. 

Surely we should be taking a leaf out of the Silicon Valley VC icons’ playbooks, and FOCUS on a particular solution, sector or customer type?

For example, let’s FOCUS only on say, B2C solutions or consumer subscription businesses or retail apps exclusively?

VC Sensei: Why?

VC Rookie: Surely FOCUS brings cumulative benefits from experience, networks, reputation and mastery. 

VC Sensei: Have these apparent ‘FOCUS’ advantages upped their odds of success, to the degree that early-stage VCs consistently outperform the negative effects of the power law governing early-stage venturing and investments (namely, ‘invest in 20 because only 1 on average will become a home-run’).

VC Rookie: Apparently not, but it should! So what’s the alternative to this seemingly ineffective type of FOCUS then? 

VC Sensei: Maybe it’s a matter of the right FOCUS, for a step change improvement in investment selection, and fund performance.

VC Rookie: Put me out of my misery. What should the FOCUS be on then, for consistently better early-stage VC success?

VC Sensei: The primary FOCUS should be on the market!

More specifically, on reaching Product- (New Market) Category Fit (PCF)!

In other words, knowing IF and WHEN this key inflection point is possible, beforeinvesting.

VC Rookie: So FOCUSING on the market in a reliable way, allows us to operate in all sectors, Sensei?

VC Sensei: YES, and it’s more profound. There are 2 guiding principles that govern our Product-Category fit (PCF) investment approach:

1. We bet on the market

, and 

2. We never rely on analogy – even in the same sector

 (‘it worked there, so it will work here’, or its ‘Uber-for-this-or-that’)

VC Rookie: Surely VCs have figured this out?

VC Sensei: Indeed, Sequoia Capital stands out. They bet on the market, and play a role in creating new market category kings, and have become a trillion dollar fund.

VC Rookie: With Sequoia being the king, what is new market category we are carving out for ourselves, for which we can emerge as a king too?

VC Sensei: Two new market categories, actually. Linked together within what we call the Market Category Generator (MCG), one for startups and one for investors:

Let me explain. Aspiring emerging market kings (startups) undergo the Product-Category fit (PCF) process inside the MCG, to determine IF and WHEN they can reach PCF, and investors inside the MCG, take options on the home-runs coming through.

No alt text provided for this image

VC Rookie: Arigato Sensei, consider me FOCUSED 🙂

www.tmaragroup.com invites innovative startups in all sectors to apply to a local MCG for product-category fit (PCF) testing and investment.

No alt text provided for this image

More topics by TMARA

Heavenly angel investors now test for product-market fit before investing:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/heavenly-angel-investors-now-test-product-market-fit-before-nathan/

Stop turning friends and families into fools

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stop-turning-friends-family-fools-anthony-nathan/

HOW to know, IF and WHEN a startup will reach Product-Market Fit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-you-could-reach-product-market-fit-pmf-anthony-nathan/?published=t

The primary cause of startup failure:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simply-true-anthony-nathan/

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/non-consensus-piece-info-changes-game-early-stage-venturing-nathan/

/by

Introducing the Market Category Generator (MCG)

We can now overcome one of the BIGGEST CHALLENGES in the start-up world – to locate the illusive nature of the market’s sweet spot, a.k.a to reach a perfect product-category fit, scientifically.

The solution sits inside the Market Category Generator (MCG), and comes with a guarantee for participating startups and early-stage investors:The guarantee for 

start-ups :

An agreed min. valuation at Series A within 6-18 months, plus the MCG covers the cost of the product-category fit test journey, AND invests at series A.The guarantee for 

investors :

The MCG guarantees home-runs at a specific product-category fit test journey cost, and TMARA covers any cost overrun, plus investors secure a preferential equity option on all the home-runs coming through their MCG.

TMARA’s Market Category Generator (MCG)

An MCG is an investor-linked, factory-style, virtual, scalable, global franchise that turns START-UPS into emerging new market CATEGORY KINGS, through a scientific ‘product-category fit / market adoption’ process.

It’s the missing link in the early-stage venturing and investment space, in a new emerging category (sits between an incubator and accelerator), which is designed to be franchised into any startup city in the world

There are basically three parties involved in an MCG:

 The ingredients all exist inside the MCG.

The business model wins for each party: 

START UP WIN = Every early-stage business (Start Up) wants to reach what is called “Product-Category Fit” – The moment you overcome your market constraint, and start to grow rapidly. Some call it , becoming an “Emerging New Market Category King”. After achieving “Product-category Fit”, the business is ready for super scaling, and is also ready for its first serious funding round – Series A funding.

INVESTOR WIN = Every early-stage investor wants to limit the down side, while enjoying unlimited upside. They want to keep the at-risk portion as little as possible, without jeopardising their upside. [The MCG achieves this with a guarantee to cover any overrun on the risk portion, to generate a success]

EXPERT WIN = The know-how providers share in the net gain, from the emerging kings. The guarantees are protected through a clear set of rules: Start Ups must pass the “Product-Category Fit” tests. The investors must allow the test to reveal the winners, and no-one is allowed to influence decisions based on any form of prediction. 

Who is the ideal MCG investor? 

What is the product – the MCG?

The Market Category Generator (MCG) breaks the main barrier to find, fund and profit from early-stage companies, by turning uncertainty into probability, then into (investment) optionality. (This became possible through Dr. Eli Goldratt’s two principles for technology that govern the space of early stage venturing and investment). 

The MAIN BARRIER = Early-stage LEAD investors have to make a decision to invest without knowing

IF and WHEN the start up will takeoff (information inefficiency), forcing them to cope

 by betting on a portfolio of great entrepreneur with a great product, solving a big problem ( betting on the capability for success). 

Faced with above-mentioned barrier, the rule is simply = Bet on the Jockey! (It is easy to understand why betting on the Jockey is the best way to cope with the uncertainty – a great jockey has a better chance to face and deal with the uncertainty).

Stop turning friends and family into fools:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stop-turning-friends-family-fools-anthony-nathan/

Fewer start-up failures, does not mean more winners:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fewer-failures-do-mean-more-winners-start-ups-anthony-nathan/

HOW to know, IF and WHEN a startup will reach Product-Market Fit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-when-you-could-reach-product-market-fit-pmf-anthony-nathan/?published=t

The primary cause of startup failure:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simply-true-anthony-nathan/

Most, if not all, of the great startup successes (home runs) did not solve a BIG PROBLEM for a big market!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/non-consensus-piece-info-changes-game-early-stage-venturing-nathan/

/by

TMARA’s story

For Game-Changing innovation, our cardinal insight came on the 15th of April 2015. It is now nearly four years later …

During 2014, Anthony Nathan (former client and a close friend of mine) had started commercializing new game-changing technologies. I thought some of the innovations were absolutely amazing, but from our conversations it became clear that it is far easier said than done. He kept asking me: “Why is it so difficult to get people to see the value of a game-changer?” He explained to me, how he had developed into a thick-skinned sales person that would go around the world kicking down doors. Every single sale was painful. At one stage he told me: “The bigger the game-changer, the more difficult the sell!” I had no answer. 

The morning of the 15th of April 2015, I was scanning over some old Theory of Constraints educational material developed by Dr Eli Goldratt (father of the Theory of Constraints and long-time colleague) on the ‘reason for technology’. One specific statement Dr Goldratt made caught my eye. The statement was: “Technology is necessary but not sufficient, the market must adopt the new rules to realize the full benefit”. I immediately knew this statement would somehow explain Anthony’s challenge.

From that moment on, I wanted to understand Dr Goldratt’s statement much deeper, because it clearly stated that the full value of technology does not come directly from the technology itself, but more from the market adopting the new rules. Wow, this could be big – the real MARKET VALUE is only realized through the NEW RULES and not directly from the TECHNOLOGY itself.

A simple example further convinced me, that we might be onto something. In 1717 a guy by the name of Daniel Fahrenheit invented the thermometer (the controversial tool was a glass tube used to measure body temperature). Daniel offered his game-changer to doctors to assist them with the challenge of assessing if a patient had a fever or not. Only a few early adopters thought it could be of use, but they failed to convince the masses.

For nearly a hundred years, doctors were generally reluctant to use the glass tube. Why? A French doctor Jean Charles Grimaud captured the prevailing view and rule, when he argued that the doctor’s touch captured information much richer than any tool. In other words, using the thermometer suggested incompetence on the part of the doctor. Today, doctors no longer rely on touch and not using the thermometer rather, suggests incompetence. It took nearly a hundred years for the market to figure out the new rules before the market would adopt it. From Dr Goldratt’s statement, I realized that if you present your game-changing technologies (features and benefits) without suggesting the new way and rules, you would experience a very slow adoption.

I phoned Anthony and asked him: “Confirm if you’re selling the major value, as the direct features and benefits of the game-changing technology?” He confirmed this, and I just could not stop him from repeating all the features and benefits again – so much passion, yet modest success to-date. It just confirmed, that the direct features and benefits of a new game-changer, do not trigger the market’s perception of value. The more passionate Anthony got, the more customers resisted.

I decided to drive to Anthony’s place, to share my discovery face to face. I took a photo of my notes and decided to think about how to present it, on the way there. Arriving, I wasn’t 100% sure how to approach it, and started by explaining to him, that long before the new game-changing technology arrived, the market was coping just fine. That the market was not waiting in great anticipation for the new technology. That markets develop ways of life or work to accommodate for the challenges they are facing.

I also shared with him Fahrenheit’s story, and how the doctors faced an insurmountable challenge of having to assess if a patient had a fever or not, without clear tell tail signs or recordable evidence. To accommodate for this challenge, they developed and adopted over time the skill to assess for a fever, through touch. At least, he did not disagree.

Photo of my notes: 15 April 2015

I told him that the market is in love with their current ways and rules, and understand well, the value they are realizing as a result. For example: the doctor’s touch played an important part in making the doctor almost indispensable. You now come along, and show them your new game-changing technology, that can easily overcome the challenge they were facing, but then you do not readily suggest the new way and rules that they will have to adopt, before they will be able to realize the new value.

Instead you focused them on the direct features and benefits of the technology itself. The market now judges your new product through the eyes of their old way and rules. No wonder adoption of game-changing innovations is usually a slow and painful process.

Four years later and with more than 300 cases; we have codified the subject of game-changing innovation into the relevant first principles, methods and applications, to reliably guide innovators on how to accelerate market adoption.

TMARA Founders: Henning du Preez, Anthony Nathan, Ron Striechman and Derrick de Necker

www.tmaragroup.com

/by