Download Blank The Four Steps To The Epiphany Pdf Free

A version of this article first appeared in the I’m a big fan of of innovation. (if you’re not familiar with it there’s a brief description a few paragraphs down.) It’s one of the quickest ways to describe and prioritize innovation ideas in a large company or government agency. However, in the 21 stcentury the Three Horizons model has a fatal flaw that could put companies out of business and government agencies behind their adversaries. While traditional analysis suggests that Horizon 3 disruptive innovations take years to develop, in today’s world this is no longer the case. The three horizons are not bound by time. Horizon 3 ideas – disruption – can be delivered as fast as ideas for Horizon 1 – existing products.

Feb 9, 2012 - It is recommended—not required—reading for the free online course. I wouldn't hold my breath on thisthe 4 steps hasn't got an ebook version after 10 years, I wouldn't expect this one to have one. Will there be a PDF version available? Why is “The Four Steps to the Epiphany” so hard to read?

In order to not be left behind, companies / government agencies need to focus on speed of delivery and deployment across all three horizons. When first articulated by, Coley and White in the 20 th century, the Three Horizons model was a simple way to explain to senior management the need for an – the idea that companies and government agencies need to execute existing business / mission models while simultaneously creating new capabilities. The Three Horizons provided an incredibly useful taxonomy.

The model described innovation occurring in: • Horizon 1 ideas provide continuous innovation to a company’s existing business model and core capabilities. • Horizon 2 ideas extend a company’s existing business/model and core capabilities to new customers, markets or targets. • Horizon 3 is the creation of new capabilities to take advantage of or respond to disruptive opportunities or to counter disruption. Each horizon requires different focus, different management, different tools and different goals. McKinsey suggested that to remain competitive in the long run a company allocate its research and development dollars and resources across all three horizons. And here’s the big idea. In the past we assigned relative delivery time to each of the Horizons.

For example, some organizations defined Horizon 1 as new features that could be delivered in 3-12 months; Horizon 2 as business/mission model extensions 24-36 months out; and Horizon 3 as creating new disruptive products/business/mission models 36-72 months out. This time-based definition made sense in the 20 th century when new disruptive ideas took years to research, engineer and deliver. That’s no longer true in the 21 st century. Today, disruption – Horizon 3 ideas – can be delivered as fast as Horizon 1 ideas.

For example, Uber took existing technology (smartphone app, drivers) but built a unique business model ( disrupting taxis) and the Russians used existing social media tools to wage political warfare. Fast disruption happens by building on existing technologies uniquely configured, packaged and/or delivered, and combining them with a “speed of good-enough deployment as a force multiplier” mindset. What’s an Example of Rapid Horizon 3 Implementation? In the commercial space AirBnB, Uber, Craigslist, Tesla, and the explosion of machine learning solutions (built on hardware originally designed for computer graphics ()) are examples of radical disruption using existing technologies in extremely short periods of time. In the government space, Russian interference with elections, and as well as repurposing to attack aircraft carriers, are examples of radical disruption using existing technologies deployed in extremely short periods of time. What’s Different about Rapid Horizon 3 Disruption? These rapid Horizon 3 deliverables emphasize disruption, asymmetry and most importantly speed, over any other characteristic.

Serviceability, maintainability, completeness, scale, etc. Are all secondary to speed and asymmetry. To existing competitors or to existing requirements and acquisition systems they look like minimum viable products – barely finished, iterative and incremental prototypes. But the new products get out of the building, disrupt incumbents and once established, they then and scale. Incumbents now face a new competitor/threat that obsoletes their existing product line/infrastructure/business/mission model. Why Do the Challengers/new Entrants Have the Edge?