Although I have first heard of this book
over a decade ago, I just now concluded Blue Ocean Strategy (W. Chan
Kim, Renée Mauborgne, 320 pages). And I think this book is a hype, and not
worth the time.
To be fair, there are some good key ideas
here. The idea of value innovation (focusing on user value, divided into
different components) and the idea of focusing on creating new markets, or new
demand, instead of focusing on the competition. Nothing of this is new,
however, as the book sometimes present it.
If books and authors could be confronted
with their ideas while readers read the text, I feel I would have stopped the
authors at many, many points along this book. Mainly because too many building blocks
here were, in my opinion, biased, or ill-formulated, while the logical
construction just built upon layers and layers of less-than-solid foundations.
One of the main problems is that the
authors “personalize” companies in
a way that is not only simplistic, but also wrong. Thinking that the Cirque
du Soleil, for example, created a new market that didn’t exist, and attributing
intention to unknown or complex dynamics is almost silly.
It is okay to come up
with a post-factum
explanation to the success of the Cirque du Soleil, or of Ford Company,
or any other of the many “cases”
described in the book. But the reality is that most likely none of these cases
were purposely conducted from beginning to end.
In other words, entrepreneurs
basically combine their known-how, previous experiences and current resources, along
with their access to new and evolving technologies, and throw at the mix different
hypothesis that are tried out in practice. Many are brave enough to try out
ideas, and some of them succeed. Our first bias here is towards finding a hindsight
explanation, when many times even the same idea does not succeed first to blossom
just some years or decades later.
The book, however, ignores
all of these dynamics and basically wants to make us think of it all in terms
of ignoring competition and focus on creating new industries or new demands.
That’s not how things work out in practice.
One indication as of
why this simplistic method is flawed is that the authors themselves don’t seem
to have created multi-billion
companies or industries, as their method seem to indicate to be quite possible
by following their simple rules.
Another irritation point is the claim, at different
points, that technology innovations were not enough to explain the success stories
presented. Even when they clearly were pivotal. Ford did not start producing
cheap cars because he envisioned the brave new blue ocean of an entire new
industry for cheap cars. He did it, to a great extent, because the assembly
lines were brought to a new industry. And this very technical and process
innovation explains much of his success.
In any case, I could go into many counter-arguments
to multiple cases presented in the book. But it is not worth it. The time I
spent on it was not worth it. Even being a super best-seller, I think the
couple good ideas in this title can be absorbed without the need to go through
it entirely. I rest my case.