Open up your mind and say, ahh...

This is the first part in a short series to introduce The End of Business as Usual…

Change is inevitable, but it is rarely easy. Among the greatest difficulties associated with change is the ability to even recognize its need at a time when we can actually do something about it. Sometimes, when we finally realize that change is inevitable, the vision  or energy needed to push forward in a new direction is elusive. Or worse, when competitors recognize the need for change before us, we are by default pushed into a precarious position where our next steps become impulsive rather than strategic.

If you follow technology as avidly as I do, we can agree that the volume of emerging technology is both awe-inspiring and overwhelming. As new technology makes its way into into everyday life and workflow, certain devices, applications, and networks disrupt the norm and begin to impact behavior. It is this disruptive technology that over time, influences how people work, communicate, share, or make decisions. The question is at what point does emerging technology or new behavior become disruptive? And more importantly, what systems, processes, and protocol are in place that recognize disruption, assess opportunity, and facilitate the testing of new ideas? The time to answer these questions is now.

The reality is that we live and compete in a perpetual era of Digital Darwinism, the evolution of consumer behavior when society and technology evolve faster than our ability to adapt.

Nothing today is too big to fail nor too small to succeed. Disruption not only faces every business, its effects are already spreading through customer markets and the channels that influence decisions and behavior. What works against you also works for you. And, it is what you do now that defines your ability to compete for today and the future. You already recognize the importance technology plays in your business. That’s why you’re here. But recognizing the difference between emerging and disruptive technology and measuring its impact on your business, customer relationships, and products is a necessary discipline to successfully evolve.

The means to see the need for change is only surpassed by our ability to distinguish opportunities for transformation and innovation. This isn’t just a matter of survival of the fittest, this is a long-term commitment to earning relevance by consistently seeing what others don’t, listening to the needs of customers, and delivering experiences that are worth repeating and sharing.

So, who’s next…to either succeed or fail as a result of disruption? Share your observations, predictions, and reasons in the comments below as they will drive the creation of the next video.

#AdaptorDie

Ford is pushing forward in the evolution of the connected car with the unveiling of OpenXC, a research platform which aims to turn your car into a plug-and-play device.

Ford is gung-ho for connectivity and seems determined to pack as much technology into its cars as possible. It believes connectivity and in-car tech like Sync can make us better, safer drivers while increasing the practicality and usefulness of our time behind the wheel.

Open XC, announced Monday at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco, rests on collaboration with open-source hardware makers Bug Labs. Using a dashboard-mounted device, Ford’s cars could essentially become docking stations for user-selected hardware and software modules (seen above in prototype form) that can be plugged in to the car. The OpenXC research program will provide developers with tool kits to create applications specifically for use in the car, which are then stored on the different modules.

“We’re actually modularizing the app,” said Ford research senior technical leader K. Venkatesh Prasad in an interview.

In the same vein as Apple, Ford hopes the OpenXC program will entice developers to create apps which could eventually be sold through a Ford-backed app storefront.

“The potential for monetization is definitely on the horizon,” Prasad said.

Opening up your software platform to outside developers is becoming a fast-growing technique in the automotive industry. Toyota introduced its EnTune platform earlier this year, allowing developers to create smartphone apps tailor-made to work with your car. Of course, EnTune came long after Ford pushed into the space with its Sync smartphone-app integration platform in 2007.

Though calling these platforms truly “open” isn’t entirely accurate; Ford will vet application submissions for safety purposes, mostly to keep out apps that require unsafe practices (like fumbling with your smartphone while going 55).

“Apple did something really smart,” said Bug Labs CEO Peter Semmelhack said in an interview. “Millions of people bought the iPhone for what it was — a phone. Then Apple turned that around and offered developers a chance to sell apps to those customers.”

As Apple has proved, when there are developers willing to provide content to your platform, there’s money to be made. Apple currently hosts nearly half a million applications at its App Store, a large incentive for smartphone shoppers to buy their hardware from the company. At the same time, Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all applications sold, gaining revenue from products they don’t have to spend R&D resources in order to produce.

Don’t expect to pay through the nose for the modules, either. Ford is aiming for the low end on pricing, somewhere in the range of $20 or $30. Further, the company may end up launching the modules as rentals, potentially distributed through local dealerships or other aftermarket distribution centers like Car Toys. Sort of like RedBox, but for car apps.

Prasad says Ford plans to cooperate with at least six different universities for further module development before a full launch, and expects the software toolkits to be available for distribution to independent developers by the end of this year.

Photo: Ford

I recently re-read this great article about how many marketers are moving into partnerships with product makers so that they own more equity in the product and so that they own more of the design and development stages as well. This is interesting, because it’s the opposite of showing up for work as a marketer for a company. Instead of pushing Coke or Fritos or whatever, you’re making a deal with John’s Original Lime Rickey and building it into something you can sell better. It’s what my friend, Tim Hayden and I called during a recent discussion “having some of my own ponies in the race.”

Not everyone will go that route. It’s tricky. It requires one to be an investor. It requires a sense that the marketplace will support your product and it requires a lot of thought into the ways it differs to work for a company versus be part of the ownership of a product (or service).

If you do think that way, I think the way to go is with local and/or small businesses on the one hand, and with huge outsourcing and manufacturing teams on the other. For instance, if I know someone who makes an amazing premium cupcake, I just have to figure out a way to dropship it safely, and I could really add to that person’s bottom line. If I could partner with a Chinese manufacturing company, I could create some kind of product that appeals to the kinds of people I’ve built my community around. Either way, I wouldn’t be just selling someone else’s product. I’d be partnered, and that would include shouldering more of the burden, but also reaping more of the rewards.

There’s more on this in this thread at Third Tribe Marketing (membership required). We go on to talk about the evolution and some ideas and some pitfalls.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.