Ever since finishing that first SWOT assignment on Tesla, I feel like I’ve connected with and grasped the core characteristics of their company. Thus, it was a pleasant surprise to find an external blog scrutinizing Tesla’s research and development processes, especially given our discussion on this firm and created shared value.

Fred Wilson’s post delineates the rise of a new concept that really intrigues me: incremental innovation. In class, we explored the ideas of both sustainable and disruptive innovations, which suggested that unorthodox competitive disruption in today’s marketplace is now the standardized norm. However, the thought of an “incremental” strategy seems to speak to a middle-ground approach, where firms adopt a systematic, structured process in relaying developments to consumers: is this perhaps a step above the erratic notion of disruption?

I definitely agree with Wilson’s assertion that Tesla’s “feature-by-feature” marketing launch tactic is a highly effective technique, as it helps control and maintain consumer segments by easing buyers through rapid technological advances. While I doubt that Tesla’s corporate growth and sales are going to expand as quickly as their pool of ideas, if they continue churning out convincing points-of-difference (such as their new 3-month “happiness guarantee” return policy) and distinctive peripheral value packages (see lease rate reductions), then it is obvious that they will generate huge future returns and can focus on that shared value bottom-line more effectively.

I’ve always found the realm of finance to be a complex cluster of fluctuating stocks and investments and nothing much else. However, after our in-class exploration of tech IPOs, I thought back to Mahesh’s discussion on risk and uncertainty in operations, and I quickly realized: the crux of finance itself is the embodiment of volatility.

Specifically, this interesting article describes BCA Marketplace, a UK-based car auctioneer firm, that decided to withdraw their floatation decision, citing the reason “volatile global equities”. From a corporate growth standpoint, I acknowledge that the sheer amount of capital raised through public shares cannot be overlooked, as BCA’s opportunity cost by backing out was at least £200m. However, it’s easy to get caught up in the numbers and not delve into the real implications of an IPO. Logically, I feel that the dilution of ownership from shared equity could lead to internal culture clashes and the future risk of voting in a board of directors that are unrepresentative of the company vision, while the new obligation to produce financial statements for external stakeholders would also be an added managerial hassle.

To me, the financial game is now just as much about betting all of your chips to maximize your returns as it is about knowing when to safely fold until the next round.

When thinking of the business model canvas at a macroscopic scale, I initially didn’t consider issues regarding the First Nations as relevant in managerial decision-making. However, after scrutinizing Christie Clark’s efforts to amiably improve the government’s relationship with the First Nations, it seems like political factors permeate the BC government’s aims for greater cooperation and interactions between the Indigenous. Seen through peaceful negotiations and arbitration, this is similar to developing the “key partners” section in the model canvas.

While HP’s decision to de-merge into their individual B2B software services portfolio and their unit of computer-printer sales may not be an example of either national politics or First Nations disputes, there may be several implications on a deeper level. The article speaks of HP’s near “obligation” to split their company in a very positive light, but citing reasons such as “fast-paced technological market growth” and “long-term value for shareholders” seems too much an oversimplification.

I’d go far enough to say that politics and key relationships have a large part in this revelation, as compared to the First Nations disagreements – but this case speaks to internal corporate culture politics. It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to suggest that there could be a clash of interest within management or “hiccups” in operations that prompted a de-merger, but it all boils down to streamlining those important external key partnerships keeping a business (or Native party) afloat.

Christine’s blog post argues that the advent of online shopping threatens to push tangible retailers like HMV out of business. Personally, I largely agree with her assertion that HMV and similar firms must adapt to the volatility and uncongenial fast-pace of the current marketplace, but then I asked myself: can these firms really afford to fight a seemingly uphill technological battle?  Sure, tailoring the marketing mix to include selling peripheral products and placing a greater emphasis on customer experience can act as points-of-parity to keep HMV in the game, but to me, these extension strategies are merely obsolescent contingency packages with a ticking time bomb inside.

However, I then read a recent article that underscored large scale initiatives taken by shopping malls to “modernize” their competitive position. In fact, Canadian Tire’s CMO Duncan Fulton stated that, “digital blows up everyone’s business model”. Indeed, working with the business model canvas extensively in class with my theoretical business has made me realize that constant alterations are needed to ensure growth and increased competitiveness. Thus, HMV should sustain their value proposition and targeted customer segments, but revamp their key resources and activities by implementing convincing attractions, as Christine first suggested, to add value and envelop entertained consumers.

Ultimately, it’s far from the traditional retailer’s last cry.