One size fits all, NOT!

Have you ever tried those one size fits all sox? Then you know that they never really fit. When running they cause blisters, when walking without shoes they slip, etc. Still this is what we aspire to when designing a product. It has to be good for everything and everybody, so when we design a new programming language it has to be able to do everything (Java). In the end it will run on web based platforms and you have to buy into 'the network is the computer' philosophy as well, so it's not for everybody. Since it's Open source it's very hard to make money on it other then through services. From a programmers point of view it's not for everybody so we come up with new stuff like Python, which is more flexible, scaleable, etc., etc. Java apparently wasn't as 'one size fits all' as we thought. I can name many other examples (SAP a.o.), but for lack of space. . .

One size fits all only works as long as there is no real competition (Microsoft Windows/Office). Even Henry Ford wasn’t able to stick to any colour as long as it was black. TV started out as an almost round black and white thing to gather around and see moving images. Nothing really new about it; wires, tube, lamps, antennas, everything was already there. Someone (Farnsworth?) put things together differently – and we got TV. Just look around you today; CRT, LCD, Plasma, Computer included, DVD included, Dolby Surround, HDTV, 20" to 65" and even beamers. In a mature market there is no such thing as 'one size fits all'. The higher we go up Maslow’s pyramid of human needs, the more we demand differentiation and diversification. When consumers have their primary needs fulfilled, they want new features, features that differ per individual taste. They need to personalize their stuff. Individuals can be segmented as target groups, and if the target group is large enough and willing to pay enough, a new product or service variation will be launched. Not even Apple’s iPod escapes this fate, as we can see from the questionable way that video has been incorporated in the latest version. The original innovators rarely if ever survive the transition from one size fits all to diversity (only IBM comes to mind). Even Microsoft is constantly changing its business model and diversifying. Though services is still a hard sell for them.

At Crossing Signals we are exploring new territory, sometimes we hit the right spot, sometimes we miss. What people tell us is that we need to find something that is recognizable by all and that we need to sell solutions, not an approach to come up with a solution. Doesn't sound like we're to boldly go where no one has gone before. We are that first TV, there is nothing really new about what we're doing, we just combine features in a way that apparently hasn't been done before. I think we need to avoid the trap of selling one size fits all solutions, our society is too far up Maslow's pyramid. It's also what's killing the consulting industry. Since they know they can't deliver an exact end result they therefore refuse to take the responsibility for any end result. Customers are increasingly reaching the same conclusion; if that’s how it is, why not just do it ourselves?

We have an answer to this question. Most of today's challenges can not be solved alone. Everyone of us needs to work together with partners, customers and suppliers to come up with a product or service that benefits all participants. Surprised as we are by the fact, it appears we are very good at building the needed trust and transparency to work together, help define the exact challenge and provide a path to jointly solve any challenge. We work with our customers, not for them. We believe our approach is the best at guaranteeing that the right ideas are picked to meet a challenge and solve the underlying contradictions so everybody wins. Magic Bullet? By no means, but when it doesn't pay off we sure as hell had a meaningful experience, learned a lot and will do better next time. Controversial? Absolutely, because it goes against the current business rational of protecting your assets and defending your position, an understandable and even necessary approach, but don’t we all know instinctively that our approach is just as necessary for growth as the current rational is for survival? So why not do both? We're convinced it can be done, easily. We don't know the end result in the initial phase, but as soon as the group commits, so do we, because we are part of the team. One for all and all for one!