Collaborative Consumption: Un-settling the situation

By Brett

I recently attended an excellent presentation by Robin Chase, the founder of ZipCar[1], in which she described the early obstacles to implementing ZipCar in the US.[2] In this post I will focus on Professor Macomber’s Framework #3 and argue that the innovation of collaborative consumption is that it blurs or ‘moves’ situations within the matrix framed. Zipcar used a new business model specifically to unsettle the transit situation in the US, thus creating an investment opportunity.

Chase explained how the settled systems of hard and soft infrastructure—including zoning, parking, and wireless technology—stood in the way of effective collaborative consumption of rental cars. For example, ‘normal’ (non-ZipCar) renters are charged a small tax (~$10) by the state for every rental.[3] An additional $10 fee for every single Zipcar use would have been a serious blow to Chase’s business plan. Instead (with the help of a good lawyer) Zipcar builds one $10 fee into the annual membership for Massachusetts users and every subsequent use is part of the same initial rental. As this example shows, entrenched interests had settled the system in favor of their own designs and ZipCar had to disrupt the infrastructure to create a viable market for its product. Continue reading


Roads – Simple, Mundane and Absolutely Vital

By Saravana Sivasankaran

Fresh into my first semester in HBS, I took time with a professor to discuss my post-MBA plans in West Africa. The area was developing fast and looked to reap the benefits of political stability. When I finally finishing ranting on about my ideas, the professor looked up and asked, “Can you build roads instead?”

As simple as it may sound, roads are the backbone of a country. The A2 motorway case highlighted the difficulties of financing a project in a developed country like Poland as well as the numerous benefits that the country would derive from the project. Shift to Africa and a well-constructed road could make the difference between a thriving trading town and desolate place with large, unsold, undervalued produce.

Take the case of Sierra Leone – a country that has seen numerous civil wars in the last decade. It has finally shown signs of political stability and relative calm. As the new leaders look to rebuild the country, the number one priority is attracting foreign investment into the country to invest in its transport infrastructure. Sierra Leone is flush with greenery, and agriculture is a major source of employment and a huge contributor to its GDP. For the farmers in Sierra Leone to capture the full value of their produce, they will need transportation infrastructure to be in place.  A good transportation network also means less inventory leading to less working capital needs for small businesses. Investors are also willing to pay more for a country’s resource when it has existing good transportation networks.

The idea of successfully raising financing for a project in an underdeveloped country like Sierra Leone has been discussed for ages. The challenge is finding the middle ground between what the country can afford to pay and investors return expectations for the perceived risk. I will highlight two very different approaches that have emanated through this road-building task that poor African countries have before them.

While the discovery of mining resources have often resulted in what economists like to call the “Resource Curse,” the arrival of mining companies in a country usually leads to better infrastructure, especially in roads. The new companies have a vested interest in ensuring that their output gets transported to their final markets for delivery. Take the case of Olam in Gabon. Olam is on the largest agriculture trader in the world. Olam not only owns plantations in Gabon but is also building roads and ports with cooperation with the Gabonese government. (The counter argument is that the roads are only purpose built for the mines and do not help other industries. This is true but when you are starting with very little road infrastructure, even small marginal improvements have huge visible impact on trade and development).

On the other hand, Zambia provides a completely new framework. China has been busy buying up resources in Africa. Zambia is today a major source of copper in the world and Chinese state owned enterprises have numerous investments in the country. But in order to solidify the relationship further, Chinese companies have opted to build infrastructure, especially roads, in the country. The Chinese companies have been immensely successful in bagging contracts due to their price competitiveness and also willingness to take risks. This new found relationship has not been free of controversy with both sides suffering – contractors not being paid or roads falling apart due to shoddy constructions. But it highlights the importance and urgency with which countries like Zambia are treating the development of roads.

Eradicating poverty in Africa might well be the biggest challenge we face in our lifetime and that would only be possible if African countries become self-sustainable and produce goods that the rest of the world needs. And this boils down to building roads so that the Ethiopian coffee farmer captures a fair share of your Starbucks Latte, so that Sierra Leone palm oil producers can compete with the military efficiency of Malaysian palm oil producers and so that landlocked African countries can count on trade and, not charity to run their countries.

The construction industry has not seen any “Disruptive Innovation” as HBS professor Christenson calls it.  More effort needs to go towards finding innovative ways to construct and finance these critical road projects in Africa.

While mobile banking and Internet start-ups in Africa may appear “uber cool” for the budding Africa-bound entrepreneur, it’s the dull, low margin, high-risk business of building roads in frontier African markets that will inevitably unlock Africa’s full potential.