Entrepreneurship vs established companies

Success in entrepreneurship is about creating value in the otherwise saturated ecosystem. Disruptions in technological arena is what has pushed the rise of the likes of SUN Micro-systems. And it is not impossible to take on established and successful players. However it takes a lot of courage and conviction to target and reach the heights. And the liability of newness often decides the route that can be taken. Newness means that the customers would be apprehensive, the investors would be skeptical, the value creators would choose to stay away. But despite all the odds, it's important not to bargain because for some organizational objectives it is critical to play on the size. The task is to minimize the liability by doing something different or something similar but better than the rest. In my understanding, building large organization through an evolutionary process is more likely to succeed. It is critical to dominate through the power of superiority as the 'survival of the fittest' hypothesis operates even in the business environment. Developing a new organization is a process that is to be learned than to acquire. To create that disruption you need the best in the field with similar objectives and beliefs in the opportunity. It is not about spending everything to make a product successful but the resource organization to meet the objectives with the minimum. More often than not the "liability of newness" boils down to the maneuver between "all or nothing". Mediocrity is not an option if the target is the sky. Proactive initiatives and acquired sense of responsibilities and ownership make a good team who can prove to be equivalent to a team twice the size in an older organization. "Early bird catches the worms". Conviction on the success of the product is important to gain the time advantage.

It is worthwhile noting that it is the new players that bring the maximum technological disruption than the incumbents. This is the reason why big players fear a new player with a disruptive business idea as they know that they can become big in no time. This is probably the reason why they are ready to pay any price for newly formed but small enterprises. This is probably the reason why Facebook bought Whatsapp, Instagram etc. as their strategy is to exist in the social platform as the only dominant player. However it is quite possible that incumbents are unable to recognize the disruptions by an entrant or have chosen to ignore it. This is perhaps one of the main reason why SUN Microsystems was able to garner the market share in a very short period of time. 

It is also worth noting that even great companies can fail. Listening to customer is a good idea but in cases it can be the cause of its own destruction as well, particularly in the industry where consumers are not technically qualified and informed. One of the possible reasons of failure is that it is difficult to change the entire ecosystem when you are a big player and not the one who is leading the change. For example the evolution of the disk drive industry started with the fancy of IBM only later to be taken up more aggressively by non-integrated computer makers. Having said that then how to explain the modern model of running a business where customer is considered to be the "King". There are industries where the customers drive the innovative disruptions i.e. the customers can't be ignored on the criteria if the technological innovation is a norm.

In my view, it is important for the big players to identify the disruptions and the nature of the industry to prevent the possible downfall of its market prominence. It is important to embrace the might of the new players and incorporate continuous innovation as a part of its culture.