Companies that fall prey to disruptive attacks are not stupid. They are not lazy. They are not bad operators. Indeed, the root of the innovator’s dilemma is profound competence. Smart executives fine-tune their approaches to get the maximum profit possible. But this optimization process blinds them to strategic changes taking place on the margins of the market. Typically, a small start triggers the strategic transition. But today’s pharmaceutical industry is introducing a $ 40 billion company that is leading a surprising change in strategy instead. For decades, large pharmaceutical companies have focused on one question: how can we find drugs that target the most common conditions? Mergers and acquisitions have created corporate giants that require these drugs ” use in the market. As Novartis’ Head of Research and Development of New Drugs told BusinessWeek, “Well-designed drugs continue to work.” The company believes that effective and well-understood drugs are the best bet to become a “blockbuster.” There are obviously famous examples of unexpected drug successes. Pfizer has created a drug called Sildenafil to target angina pectoris (or chest pain). Tests in the early 90s have shown that the drug has not effectively treated this condition. But it had an unexpected and powerful side benefit in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. And Viagra was born. It is always worth at least considering if it’s time to reverse your strategy. The process involves three basic questions: What is the basic assumption behind our current strategy? In the pharmaceutical industry, success has come from targeting serious conditions. What are the distinct assumptions that, if true, would lead to a radically different approach to growth? For Novartis, focusing on effectiveness and not on the target population has facilitated the creation of successes. What are the ways in which it is possible to verify the revised hypotheses? Novartis could retrace its history and conduct fundamental scientific research to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a course correction. Would it lead to a radically different approach to growth? For Novartis, focusing on efficacy and not on the target population has facilitated the creation of successes. What are the ways in which the revised hypotheses can be verified? Novartis could retrace its history and conduct fundamental scientific research to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a course correction. Would it lead to a radically different approach to growth? For Novartis, focusing on efficacy and not on the target population has facilitated the creation of successes. What are the ways in which the revised hypotheses can be verified? Novartis could retrace its history and conduct fundamental scientific research to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a course correction.
These questions seem straightforward. However, it is surprisingly difficult for companies to identify the hidden assumption that governs their strategy. Consider introducing external perspectives, even if they lack deep industry experience. Seemingly naive questions can be excellent ways to highlight hidden assumptions and provide opportunities to reverse a strategy before it’s too late.