I took an internal training course last week where we heard lectures from a bunch of MS execs (I don’t do it justice – it was far more interesting than I anticipated and something I’d do again in a heartbeat).
Anyway, one of the lecturers was talking about software markets and showed a diagram that looked something like this:
The basic concept was that there’s a base set of functionality or features that a product has to have to compete, as well as areas where it needs to be better than (or at least as good as) competitors. “Hot” products also have something unique – a “game changer” that helps drive adoption.
With the iPhone for example, the foundation was that it had to make phone calls and play music.The touch controls, the camera and photo viewing and some of the other similar features made the iPhone competitive.
The apps, the appstore, and the “there’s an app for that” wildness is huge – I know dozens of people who use an iPhone only for the apps. That is a game changer.
Of course, this is a lot like Kano – same idea, different names.
Kano has “must-haves” – the features you, well – must have. The “one-dimensional” properties in Kano are kind of like the differentiators in the chart above, and the “attractive” needs in Kano are sort of the game changers.
The thing I like about Kano is the way you plot the data. For each feature you’re considering, you ask customers (a focus group works great for this) the functional and dysfunctional form of their thoughts. For example, “How would you think of shimmery blue menus”, and “How would you feel if we didn’t have shimmery blue menus”. Their responses help you plot out where on the chart the particular feature lives.
Then it’s up to the decision makers to use the data and come up with the right mix of features that will satisfy customer needs – and give them enough “oomph” that they’ll want to give you money.
That’s all sort of interesting (or not), but I sat down here to write about something else. I’ve known about Kano for years, but when I saw the triangle version last week I had an insight.
The triangle also describes your career
If you want to be successful, at the very least you have to be able to do your job – that’s the foundation. Lot’s of people do just this and get by just fine. The next level (differentiation) is where you get good at your job – possibly even excel. There are a lot of people here too – these are your typical “great” performers. In many companies, these are the cream of the crop – and they should be.
Then, you have the game changers. There aren’t many of these, but they kick ass. They always have …something – something that only they bring to the table. These are the people that innovate and come up with the ideas that the differentiators use to get ahead (building, of course, on their execution and foundation of knowledge). Many people want to be game changers – some even proclaim they are game changers, but this level is reserved for people who earn it through great ideas and insanely hard work.
So how about you – do you want to be a game changer?
Still building my foundations
Who would you consider to be game changers ?
It sort of depends on your scope. For someone who is junior, they can be a game changer just by recognizing a few significant improvements.
Internal to Microsoft, there are a few people I’d consider company wide game changers – the scope there inolved getting entire communities (or divisions) to think and act differently.
At the industry level, Jerry Weinberg comes to mind – mostly as a thought leader and influencer through his writings. James Whittaker dabbled in the game changer quadrant as well during his time at MS.
Other than that, I probably just don’t have enough first hand information to make a good call on industry wide game changers in test.
Over a decade ago I worked as a jnr. software tester for Microsoft (circa NT4) and even then they encouraged the idea of game changer even at my level.
It was not called that then, I think the terminology was ‘Enhancement drivers’ or something like that. Everyone was encouraged to submit ideas for improvements or new features. The submissions from the software testers were considered highly as we were the ones using the products in anger.
One lesson it did teach me was that in order to get the Game changer to be recognised as such, the foundation has to be very solid which is where many innovative ideas fail (Betamax anyone?)
Thanks for the comment – something I didn’t say in the article is that at the individual level, the “game changer” aspect is relative. I love the idea of junior employees looking for ways to improve the team (and having a management staff that listens).
Thanks for the comment (and for you and James inadvertantly pointing me to KnowledgeMill – I added the KM blog to my blog roll).
Hey Alan, interesting topic here – I would say that we are living this for real at the moment… We’re a start-up focused on shaking up the traditional email and document management sector.
We’re trying to differentiate and become “game changers” by doing the basics very well – but going above and beyond that by introducing cool features for end users that begin to draw real value and knowledge out of the underlying email data. E.g. Business Intelligence, Email Analytics, Social Networking, Expertise, Hot Topics, Themes. All very cool.
I had to look to see if you were /that/ James Allchin.
I love game changers – it’s a tough path of hard work, innovation, and a little bit of luck, but I wish you well.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
I think we become game changers over time and it can be tough.
It is one thing to want to make a great contribution to the world. To do it is really difficult. I want to be a part of a team that does something great. I am proud to be a follower and not just a leader. Supporting someone else can also be a way to change the game.
Absolutely!! I keep meaning to follow up on my “Ride the Gravy Train” post, because being a good follower is in my top ten list of valuable career advice (and the actual talk behind that post included this).
Thanks for reminding me.
Great post, Alan.
And I particularly like your phrase “great ideas and insanely hard work”. I’ve seen lots of brilliant “idea people” who don’t put in the work required to really change the game. It’s a shame.
And remember, teams can be game changers, too! Being a contributing member of a game-changing team can be a great career move.
Great points – especially on game changing teams. I’d love to find a way to recognize and reward game changing teams and encourage collaboration.
Hi Alan,
This is a great post.
Game changers are those who uses technology as a medium to make life easier, better and safer to the mass.
Those who are First Movers and who are able to Innovate are the ones who succeed in longer run.
It is nice that you pointed Kano model which is quite related to the framework that you explained.