Return to Video

How to build a business that lasts 100 years

  • 0:01 - 0:04
    Imagine that you are a product designer.
  • 0:05 - 0:06
    And you've designed a product,
  • 0:06 - 0:10
    a new type of product,
    called the human immune system.
  • 0:11 - 0:13
    You're pitching this product
  • 0:13 - 0:16
    to a skeptical, strictly
    no-nonsense manager.
  • 0:16 - 0:18
    Let's call him Bob.
  • 0:18 - 0:20
    I think we all know
    at least one Bob, right?
  • 0:22 - 0:23
    How would that go?
  • 0:24 - 0:26
    Bob, I've got this incredible idea
  • 0:26 - 0:29
    for a completely new type
    of personal health product.
  • 0:29 - 0:31
    It's called the human immune system.
  • 0:31 - 0:35
    I can see from your face that
    you're having some problems with this.
  • 0:35 - 0:37
    Don't worry. I know it's very complicated.
  • 0:37 - 0:39
    I don't want to take you
    through the gory details,
  • 0:39 - 0:44
    I just want to tell you about some
    of the amazing features of this product.
  • 0:44 - 0:47
    First of all, it cleverly uses redundancy
  • 0:47 - 0:50
    by having millions of copies
    of each component --
  • 0:50 - 0:52
    leukocytes, white blood cells --
  • 0:52 - 0:54
    before they're actually needed,
  • 0:54 - 0:57
    to create a massive buffer
    against the unexpected.
  • 0:58 - 1:02
    And it cleverly leverages diversity
  • 1:02 - 1:05
    by having not just leukocytes
    but B cells, T cells,
  • 1:05 - 1:08
    natural killer cells, antibodies.
  • 1:08 - 1:10
    The components don't really matter.
  • 1:10 - 1:11
    The point is that together,
  • 1:11 - 1:16
    this diversity of different approaches
    can cope with more or less anything
  • 1:16 - 1:18
    that evolution has been able to throw up.
  • 1:20 - 1:23
    And the design is completely modular.
  • 1:24 - 1:27
    You have the surface barrier
    of the human skin,
  • 1:27 - 1:30
    you have the very rapidly reacting
    innate immune system
  • 1:30 - 1:34
    and then you have the highly targeted
    adaptive immune system.
  • 1:35 - 1:39
    The point is, that if one system fails,
    another can take over,
  • 1:39 - 1:42
    creating a virtually foolproof system.
  • 1:43 - 1:45
    I can see I'm losing you, Bob,
    but stay with me,
  • 1:45 - 1:49
    because here is the really killer feature.
  • 1:50 - 1:52
    The product is completely adaptive.
  • 1:53 - 1:57
    It's able to actually develop
    targeted antibodies
  • 1:57 - 2:00
    to threats that it's never
    even met before.
  • 2:01 - 2:04
    It actually also does this
    with incredible prudence,
  • 2:05 - 2:09
    detecting and reacting
    to every tiny threat,
  • 2:09 - 2:14
    and furthermore, remembering
    every previous threat,
  • 2:14 - 2:16
    in case they are ever encountered again.
  • 2:17 - 2:20
    What I'm pitching you today
    is actually not a stand-alone product.
  • 2:22 - 2:26
    The product is embedded
    in the larger system of the human body,
  • 2:26 - 2:29
    and it works in complete harmony
    with that system,
  • 2:29 - 2:32
    to create this unprecedented level
    of biological protection.
  • 2:32 - 2:35
    So Bob, just tell me honestly,
    what do you think of my product?
  • 2:36 - 2:39
    And Bob may say something like,
  • 2:39 - 2:42
    I sincerely appreciate
    the effort and passion
  • 2:42 - 2:45
    that have gone into your presentation,
  • 2:45 - 2:46
    blah blah blah --
  • 2:46 - 2:47
    (Laughter)
  • 2:47 - 2:50
    But honestly, it's total nonsense.
  • 2:52 - 2:55
    You seem to be saying that the key
    selling points of your product
  • 2:55 - 2:58
    are that it is inefficient and complex.
  • 2:59 - 3:01
    Didn't they teach you 80-20?
  • 3:02 - 3:05
    And furthermore, you're saying
    that this product is siloed.
  • 3:06 - 3:07
    It overreacts,
  • 3:07 - 3:09
    makes things up as it goes along
  • 3:09 - 3:11
    and is actually designed
    for somebody else's benefit.
  • 3:11 - 3:15
    I'm sorry to break it to you,
    but I don't think this one is a winner.
  • 3:15 - 3:17
    If we went with Bob's philosophy,
  • 3:17 - 3:21
    I think we'd actually end up
    with a more efficient immune system.
  • 3:21 - 3:24
    And efficiency is always important
    in the short term.
  • 3:25 - 3:28
    Less complex, more efficient,
    more bang for the buck.
  • 3:28 - 3:30
    Who could say no to that?
  • 3:30 - 3:33
    Unfortunately, there's one
    very tiny problem,
  • 3:33 - 3:36
    and that is that the user
    of this product, you or I,
  • 3:36 - 3:40
    would probably die
    within one week of the next winter,
  • 3:40 - 3:43
    when we encountered a new strain
    of the influenza virus.
  • 3:45 - 3:49
    I first became interested
    in biology and business,
  • 3:49 - 3:52
    and longevity and resilience,
  • 3:52 - 3:54
    when I was asked a very unusual question
  • 3:54 - 3:57
    by the CEO of a global tech company.
  • 3:57 - 3:59
    And the question was:
  • 3:59 - 4:05
    What do we have to do to make sure
    that our company lasts 100 years?
  • 4:07 - 4:08
    A seemingly innocent question,
  • 4:08 - 4:11
    but actually, it's a little trickier
    than you might think,
  • 4:12 - 4:17
    considering that the average
    US public company now
  • 4:17 - 4:20
    can expect a life span of only 30 years.
  • 4:21 - 4:24
    That is less than half of the life span
  • 4:24 - 4:27
    that its employees can expect to enjoy.
  • 4:28 - 4:30
    Now, if you were the CEO
    of such a company,
  • 4:31 - 4:34
    badgered by investors
    and buffeted by change,
  • 4:34 - 4:37
    we might forgive you
    for not even worrying too much
  • 4:37 - 4:39
    about what happens 30 years out.
  • 4:39 - 4:42
    But here's something that should
    keep you awake at night:
  • 4:44 - 4:47
    the probability that your company
    will not be around in five year's time,
  • 4:47 - 4:51
    on average, is now
    a staggering 32 percent.
  • 4:52 - 4:56
    That's a one in three chance
    that your company will be taken over
  • 4:56 - 4:59
    or will fail within just five years.
  • 5:02 - 5:04
    Let's come back
    to our tech CEO's question.
  • 5:04 - 5:08
    Where better to turn
    for advice than nature,
  • 5:08 - 5:10
    that's been in the business
    of life and death
  • 5:10 - 5:12
    for longer than any company?
  • 5:15 - 5:17
    As a lapsed biologist,
  • 5:17 - 5:20
    I decided to immediately call
    a real biologist,
  • 5:20 - 5:22
    my friend Simon Levin,
  • 5:22 - 5:26
    Professor of Biology and Mathematics
    at Princeton University.
  • 5:26 - 5:30
    Together, we looked at a variety
    of biological systems,
  • 5:30 - 5:33
    ranging from natural tropical rainforests
  • 5:33 - 5:36
    through to managed forests and fisheries.
  • 5:36 - 5:38
    And we asked ourselves the question:
  • 5:38 - 5:43
    What makes these systems
    resilient and enduring?
  • 5:44 - 5:48
    And what we found
    was that the same six principles
  • 5:48 - 5:51
    that we saw underpinning
    the miracle of the human immune system
  • 5:51 - 5:54
    actually cropped up again and again,
  • 5:55 - 5:58
    from redundancy through to embeddedness.
  • 5:59 - 6:03
    In fact, we saw these principles
    not only in biologically enduring systems,
  • 6:03 - 6:06
    we also found them
    being very characteristic
  • 6:06 - 6:09
    of long-lived social systems,
  • 6:09 - 6:11
    like the Roman Empire
    and the Catholic Church,
  • 6:11 - 6:12
    believe it or not.
  • 6:12 - 6:14
    We also went on to look at business,
  • 6:14 - 6:19
    and found that these very same properties
    also characterized businesses
  • 6:19 - 6:21
    that were resilient and long-lived,
  • 6:21 - 6:25
    and we noted their absence
    from ones which were short-lived.
  • 6:27 - 6:31
    Let's first take a look at what happens
    when the corporate immune system
  • 6:31 - 6:32
    collapses.
  • 6:33 - 6:38
    This beautiful building is part
    of the Shitennoji Temple Complex
  • 6:38 - 6:39
    in Osaka, Japan.
  • 6:40 - 6:43
    In fact, it's one of the oldest
    temples in Japan.
  • 6:43 - 6:45
    It was built by a Korean artisan,
  • 6:45 - 6:48
    because at the time,
    Japan was not yet building temples.
  • 6:49 - 6:54
    And this Korean artisan went on
    to found a temple-building company.
  • 6:55 - 6:58
    Amazingly, his company, Kongō Gumi,
  • 6:58 - 7:04
    was still around 1,428 years later.
  • 7:04 - 7:07
    In fact, it became the oldest
    continuously operating company
  • 7:07 - 7:09
    in the world.
  • 7:10 - 7:12
    So how is Kongō Gumi doing today?
  • 7:14 - 7:16
    Not too well, I'm afraid.
  • 7:17 - 7:18
    It borrowed very heavily
  • 7:18 - 7:21
    during the bubble period
    of the Japanese economy,
  • 7:21 - 7:22
    to invest in real estate.
  • 7:22 - 7:26
    And when the bubble burst,
    it couldn't refinance its loans.
  • 7:26 - 7:28
    The company failed,
  • 7:28 - 7:31
    and it was taken over
    by a major construction company.
  • 7:33 - 7:37
    Tragically, after 40 generations
    of very careful stewardship
  • 7:37 - 7:39
    by the Kongō family,
  • 7:40 - 7:44
    Kongō Gumi succumbed
    to a spectacular lapse
  • 7:44 - 7:47
    in the ability to apply
    a principle of prudence.
  • 7:48 - 7:50
    Speaking of company failures:
  • 7:52 - 7:54
    we're all familiar
    with the failure of Kodak,
  • 7:55 - 7:57
    the company that declared bankruptcy
  • 7:57 - 7:59
    in January 2012.
  • 8:01 - 8:05
    Much more interesting,
    however, is the question:
  • 8:05 - 8:07
    Why did Fujifilm --
  • 8:08 - 8:13
    same product, same pressures
    from digital technology, same time --
  • 8:13 - 8:17
    why was Fujifilm
    able to survive and flourish?
  • 8:19 - 8:25
    Fujifilm used its capabilities
    in chemistry, material science and optics
  • 8:26 - 8:28
    to diversify into a number of areas,
  • 8:29 - 8:32
    ranging from cosmetics to pharmaceuticals,
  • 8:32 - 8:34
    to medical systems to biomaterials.
  • 8:34 - 8:37
    Some of these diversification
    attempts failed.
  • 8:38 - 8:39
    But in aggregate,
  • 8:39 - 8:43
    it was able to adapt
    its portfolio sufficiently
  • 8:43 - 8:45
    to survive and flourish.
  • 8:47 - 8:49
    As the CEO, Mr. Komori, put it,
  • 8:50 - 8:54
    the strategy succeeded
    because it had "more pockets and drawers"
  • 8:54 - 8:55
    than the rivals.
  • 8:55 - 8:56
    He meant, of course,
  • 8:56 - 9:00
    that they were able to create
    more options than the rivals.
  • 9:01 - 9:06
    Fujifilm survived because it applied
    the principles of prudence,
  • 9:06 - 9:07
    diversity
  • 9:07 - 9:08
    and adaptation.
  • 9:10 - 9:13
    A catastrophic factory fire,
    like the one we see here,
  • 9:13 - 9:16
    completely wiped out, in one evening,
  • 9:17 - 9:23
    the only plant which supplied Toyota
    with valves for car-braking systems.
  • 9:24 - 9:27
    The ultimate test of resilience.
  • 9:28 - 9:31
    Car production ground
    to a screeching halt.
  • 9:33 - 9:37
    How was it, then, that Toyota
    was able to recover car production?
  • 9:38 - 9:40
    Can you imagine how long it took?
  • 9:40 - 9:42
    Just five days.
  • 9:42 - 9:46
    From having no braking valves
    to complete recovery in five days.
  • 9:47 - 9:48
    How was this possible?
  • 9:49 - 9:54
    Toyota managed its network of suppliers
    in such a collaborative manner
  • 9:54 - 9:58
    that it could work very quickly
    and smoothly with suppliers
  • 9:58 - 10:00
    to repurpose production,
  • 10:01 - 10:04
    fill the missing braking valve capacity
  • 10:04 - 10:07
    and have car production come online again.
  • 10:08 - 10:12
    Toyota applied the principles
    of modularity of its supply network,
  • 10:12 - 10:15
    embeddedness in an integrated system
  • 10:15 - 10:19
    and the functional redundancy
    to be able to repurpose, smoothly,
  • 10:19 - 10:21
    existing capacity.
  • 10:22 - 10:27
    Now fortunately, few companies
    succumb to catastrophic fires.
  • 10:27 - 10:30
    But we do read in the newspaper
    every day about companies
  • 10:30 - 10:34
    succumbing to the disruption
    of technology.
  • 10:35 - 10:39
    How is it, then, that the consumer
    optics giant Essilor
  • 10:39 - 10:43
    is able to avoid technology disruption,
    and even profit from it?
  • 10:43 - 10:47
    And yes, technology disruption
    is not only a big deal
  • 10:47 - 10:49
    in software and electronics.
  • 10:50 - 10:54
    Essilor carefully scans
    the competitive environment
  • 10:54 - 10:57
    for potentially disruptive technologies.
  • 10:57 - 11:00
    It acquires those technologies very early,
  • 11:00 - 11:04
    before they've become expensive
    or competitors have mobilized around them,
  • 11:04 - 11:07
    and it then develops
    those technologies itself,
  • 11:07 - 11:09
    even at the risk of failure
  • 11:09 - 11:11
    or the risk of self-disruption.
  • 11:12 - 11:15
    Essilor stays ahead of its game,
  • 11:15 - 11:17
    and has delivered spectacular performance
  • 11:17 - 11:19
    for over 40 years,
  • 11:19 - 11:23
    by using the principles
    of prudence and adaptation.
  • 11:24 - 11:27
    OK, if these principles are so powerful,
    you might be thinking,
  • 11:28 - 11:31
    why are they not commonplace in business?
  • 11:31 - 11:33
    Why do we not use these words every day?
  • 11:34 - 11:36
    Well, change has to first
    start in the mind.
  • 11:36 - 11:38
    If we think back to our pitch to Bob,
  • 11:38 - 11:40
    in order to apply the principles
  • 11:40 - 11:43
    that underpin the miracle
    of the human immune system,
  • 11:44 - 11:46
    we first need to think differently
  • 11:46 - 11:47
    about business.
  • 11:48 - 11:51
    Now typically, when we think
    about business,
  • 11:51 - 11:53
    we use what I call "mechanical thinking."
  • 11:54 - 11:56
    We set goals,
  • 11:56 - 11:57
    we analyze problems,
  • 11:57 - 12:00
    we construct and we adhere to plans,
  • 12:00 - 12:01
    and more than anything else,
  • 12:01 - 12:04
    we stress efficiency
    and short-term performance.
  • 12:04 - 12:06
    Now, don't get me wrong --
  • 12:06 - 12:09
    this is a splendidly practical
    and effective way
  • 12:09 - 12:11
    of addressing relatively simple challenges
  • 12:11 - 12:13
    in relatively stable environments.
  • 12:14 - 12:17
    It's the way that Bob -- and probably
    many of us, myself included --
  • 12:17 - 12:20
    process most business problems
    we're faced with every day.
  • 12:21 - 12:25
    In fact, it was a pretty good
    mental model for business --
  • 12:25 - 12:27
    overall --
  • 12:27 - 12:29
    until about the mid-1980s,
  • 12:29 - 12:32
    when the conjunction of globalization
  • 12:32 - 12:35
    and a revolution in technology
    and telecommunications
  • 12:35 - 12:37
    made business far more
    dynamic and unpredictable.
  • 12:37 - 12:41
    But what about those more dynamic
    and unpredictable situations
  • 12:41 - 12:43
    that we now increasingly face?
  • 12:44 - 12:46
    I think in addition
    to the mechanical thinking,
  • 12:46 - 12:50
    we now need to master the art
    of biological thinking,
  • 12:50 - 12:52
    as embodied by our six principles.
  • 12:53 - 12:57
    In other words, we need to think
    more modestly and subtly
  • 12:57 - 12:59
    about when and how
  • 12:59 - 13:02
    we can shape, rather than control,
  • 13:03 - 13:06
    unpredictable and complex situations.
  • 13:08 - 13:11
    It's a little like the difference
    between throwing a ball
  • 13:11 - 13:13
    and releasing a bird.
  • 13:14 - 13:16
    The ball would head in a straight line,
  • 13:16 - 13:18
    probably towards the intended target,
  • 13:18 - 13:21
    and the bird certainly would not.
  • 13:23 - 13:25
    So what do you think?
  • 13:25 - 13:28
    Sounds a little impractical,
    a little theoretical, perhaps?
  • 13:30 - 13:31
    Not at all.
  • 13:32 - 13:34
    Every small entrepreneurial company
  • 13:35 - 13:38
    naturally thinks and acts biologically.
  • 13:38 - 13:40
    Why?
  • 13:40 - 13:42
    Because it lacks the resources
    to shape its environment
  • 13:42 - 13:44
    through brute force.
  • 13:44 - 13:46
    It lacks the scale to buffer change,
  • 13:47 - 13:50
    and it's constantly thinking
    about the tough odds
  • 13:50 - 13:53
    for a start-up to survive.
  • 13:55 - 13:56
    Now, the irony is, of course,
  • 13:56 - 14:00
    that every large company started off
    as a small, entrepreneurial company.
  • 14:00 - 14:01
    But along the way somewhere,
  • 14:01 - 14:05
    many have lost this ability
    to think and act biologically.
  • 14:07 - 14:10
    They need to rejuvenate
    their ability to think biologically
  • 14:12 - 14:15
    in order to survive and thrive
    in today's environment.
  • 14:17 - 14:19
    So let's not just think
    about short-term performance.
  • 14:20 - 14:23
    Every company I know spends plenty of time
  • 14:23 - 14:25
    thinking about the central
    question of strategy:
  • 14:25 - 14:27
    How good is our competitive game?
  • 14:28 - 14:30
    In addition, let's also consider
  • 14:30 - 14:34
    the second, more biological
    and equally important question:
  • 14:34 - 14:37
    How long will that game last?
  • 14:37 - 14:38
    Thank you very much.
  • 14:38 - 14:41
    (Applause)
Title:
How to build a business that lasts 100 years
Speaker:
Martin Reeves
Description:

If you want to build a business that lasts, there may be no better place to look for inspiration than your own immune system. Join strategist Martin Reeves as he shares startling statistics about shrinking corporate life spans and explains how executives can apply six principles from living organisms to build resilient businesses that flourish in the face of change.

more » « less
Video Language:
English
Team:
closed TED
Project:
TEDTalks
Duration:
14:54
  • This transcript was edited on 9/12/16.

    At 6:58, the transcript was changed to: "around 1,428 years later."

English subtitles

Revisions Compare revisions