Technology Strategy - Do Your Experts Know What They Don't Know?

Knowing what is unknown sounds like a Zen koan, andmany times what these experts had predicted.
perhaps it is. We admit that competitive technologiesInterestingly, Tetlock found no differential advantage
strategic blindness may be a difficult concept to grasp,between those experts holding graduate degrees
but solving this riddle may mean the differenceversus those with undergraduate degrees.
between success and failure for your company.Taleb also offers studies by Albert and Raiffa to
Blindness, in the sense of not knowing what we don'tfurther open our minds to the blindness conundrum.
know, is a root cause of serious defects in theThe experts they studied said they had scoped their
strategic competitive intelligence gathering process:datasets to have 98% confidence of completeness,
defects such as not choosing a broad enough set ofThis means they their intended error rate to be
search strategies, not selecting the relevant cross-overbounded at 2%. However, it turned out they were off
subject areas, or missing the extreme ends.by 15-30%.
The costs of under-sampling, overlooking orAlbert and Raiffa then tested their Harvard MBA
misinterpreting key competitive technological intelligencestudents. These non-experts under-estimated sufficient
can be huge.dataset scope by a whopping 45%. Taleb frames
Consider the fact that only about 75 companies fromthese percentages as
the 1960's S&P 500 are still in existence. What"the difference between what people actually know
happened to the other 425? Could competitiveand how much they think they know."
intelligence blindness have played a part?The belief that data scoping encompasses 98% of the
One problem is that "blindness" costs are often hidden.relevant set, when it is more likely embraces only
It is difficult to measure revenues that are not earned70-85%, has a serious impact on the range of
because a product lacks certain competitive features,possibilities considered at the very beginning of the
key features that might have been added had theentire intelligence gathering process. It potentially leaves
technologies intelligence gathering phase been moretoo many possibilities unconsidered - and also confers
wide ranging.a degree of confidence in the risk profile of the final
However, the competitive "blindness" costs of patentproduct commercialization strategy that is
infringement penalty payments, and cease and desistunwarranted.
orders are more visible. These can be measured asHow big might this under-scoping error be in your
huge, often in hundreds of millions of dollars.organization? What are the implications of this
In many such IP infringement cases, the losing party will"blindness" if your business strategy is centered around
claim surprise that the competitor is bringing a claim."disruptive technologies" or "blue oceans" or predicting
This may or may not be a courtroom tactic.revenues from the execution of "open innovation"
It has been our experience in working with manytechnology transfer?
technologies companies that often the organization'sTo formulate a winning technology innovation strategy,
technology landscape scenarios are too narrowlya sufficiently broad competitive intelligence scan of
scoped, and they are truly dumbfounded to find thattechnology options is essential to illuminate potential
they were transgressing. This is particularly the casebreakthrough opportunities, as well as to expose
when the intellectual property in question waspotentially devastating "hidden" risks.
developed in an industry different from their own.Leading companies have processes and visualization
If we wanted to make it simple, we could say that thetools in place to mitigate this proven "expert blindness"
fixable causes of competitive technology strategyproblem.
blindness might be due to lack of attention, or mightThey do this by increasing the scope of their global
result from time and money saving decisions made attechnologies landscape search process massively in
some point.the first instance, followed by including varied insights
But if we delve a little more deeply into the Zen-likegained through cross-functional collaborative validation
nature of strategic technologies blindness, we learnof the data. This collaborative vetting of broadly open
that it can often be caused by "too much knowing."options and possibilities happens at the very beginning,
It turns out that blindness is largely built in to anyand continuously throughout, the product strategy
"expert" scoping process -- due to inherentdevelopment process.
under-scoping biases of the human mind. In otherUnderstanding the expert bias toward blindness is key
words, the "experts" think they have a good sense ofto adequately scoping and validating competitive
what sufficiently broad sampling boundaries aretechnologies intelligence, and questioning other's
needed to draw conclusions with a 98% degree ofassumptions. Going out of bounds to look for
confidence.cross-over ideas that will surprise competitors is a
The experts are wrong, says Nassim Taleb in "Theworthwhile ongoing strategic business pursuit.
Black Swan."Knowing more of what is unknown is becoming a
Taleb cites Philip Tetlock's study of twenty sevencontinuously improving core competency within
thousand predictions by experts, experts who believedorganizations that are focused on sustaining significant
their predictions were narrowly bounded. The resultscompetitive success in the marketplace.
of the study didn't back them up; the error rates were