The Innovation Stack

The Innovation Stack Plot Summary

Introduction

Innovation is a misunderstood force in business. While most companies believe they are innovative, true innovation often demands leaving the comfort of established practices and venturing into uncharted territories. This journey requires more than just creating a novel product—it necessitates building what Jim McKelvey calls an "Innovation Stack": a series of interconnected solutions that evolve in response to unsolved problems. The path of genuine entrepreneurship differs fundamentally from conventional business approaches. Rather than copying existing models with minor improvements, entrepreneurs tackle problems that have no precedent. They face existential threats that force them to invent solutions, which in turn create new problems requiring additional innovations. This cycle creates a powerful, interlocking system that becomes nearly impossible for competitors to replicate. Through examining groundbreaking companies like Square, Bank of Italy (now Bank of America), IKEA, and Southwest Airlines, we discover how solving perfect problems—those that haven't been solved before but match our capabilities—can transform industries and create lasting competitive advantages beyond mere disruption.

Chapter 1: Perfect Problems: The Catalyst for True Entrepreneurship

Every challenge we encounter falls into one of three categories: problems with existing solutions we can copy, problems beyond our capabilities, and perfect problems—those without solutions yet but within our reach to solve. Perfect problems are the catalyst for true entrepreneurship, driving innovation when copying is impossible. The distinction between business and entrepreneurship is critical. While businesspeople operate within established markets by copying proven formulas with minor variations, entrepreneurs venture into uncharted territory to solve problems nobody has addressed. This entrepreneurial journey often begins with recognizing unfairness or exclusion in existing systems—a desire to "square up" an industry by making it accessible to previously excluded participants. When Jim McKelvey lost a sale at his glass studio because he couldn't accept American Express, he discovered a perfect problem. The credit card industry operated with a dramatically unfair pricing structure—charging small merchants up to 45 times more than large corporations—while completely excluding millions of potential merchants. This discovery inspired McKelvey and Jack Dorsey to create Square, not just to serve existing merchants more fairly, but to expand the market to include previously excluded participants. The journey into entrepreneurship typically begins with trying to copy existing solutions, only to discover they won't work for your purpose. This moment of realization—"so that's why no one's done this before"—marks the transition from business to entrepreneurship. For Square, this occurred within hours of starting, when they discovered seventeen regulations and laws their idea would violate. Rather than giving up, they embraced the challenge, recognizing that these barriers had created an opportunity for innovation. Perfect problems don't necessarily need to be world-changing; they simply need to match your capabilities and passion. What makes a problem perfect is the personal connection—something you care about solving even when conventional wisdom suggests it's impossible. This connection provides the fuel for the difficult journey ahead, sustaining you through inevitable setbacks and powering the persistence needed to build an Innovation Stack.

Chapter 2: Innovation Stacks: Interconnected Solutions to Unsolved Problems

An Innovation Stack isn't merely a collection of independent inventions but an interconnected system of solutions that evolves in response to challenges. When entrepreneurs venture beyond existing markets, they cannot cherry-pick individual practices from established players—they must create entire ecosystems of innovation where each element supports and necessitates others. The development of an Innovation Stack follows a distinctive pattern: encountering a problem with no existing solution, creating a novel approach, discovering this solution creates new problems, solving those problems with additional innovations, and continuing this cycle until all challenges are addressed. At Square, this began with the fundamental decision to serve previously excluded merchants. This choice forced them to rethink everything from pricing models to fraud protection to hardware design. Square's Innovation Stack ultimately included fourteen interconnected elements: simplicity in pricing, free sign-up, inexpensive hardware given away, no contracts, minimal customer support, elegant software, beautiful hardware design, rapid settlement of funds, net settlement, low pricing, no advertising, online sign-up, new fraud modeling, and balance sheet accountability. Each element reinforced the others—for instance, their simple percentage-based pricing with no hidden fees required faster settlement, which demanded new fraud models, which enabled them to take on balance sheet risk. Unlike a single invention that can be patented, an Innovation Stack represents a complex system that evolves organically. This evolution isn't carefully planned; it emerges from necessity. Square didn't set out to create fourteen innovations—they simply needed to solve problems to survive, copying whatever they could and inventing only when required. The phrase "so we have to" became a mantra, reflecting how each solution necessitated another. The Wright brothers' creation of the first airplane demonstrates this concept perfectly. They didn't merely invent a wing shape; they had to develop lightweight engines, propellers, steering mechanisms, and landing systems simultaneously. Each element depended on the others, creating an integrated whole that was greater than the sum of its parts. Innovation Stacks explain why some entrepreneurial ventures achieve seemingly impossible success despite entering crowded markets or facing powerful competitors. When Amazon attacked Square with a competing product that undercut their price by 30%, Square didn't panic or match Amazon's pricing. Their Innovation Stack had created such a cohesive system that they could withstand the assault without changing their approach, ultimately leading Amazon to abandon the market entirely.

Chapter 3: Beyond Copying: The Fundamental Distinction of Entrepreneurship

Copying is humanity's default strategy for survival. From our genetic code to our educational systems, we are programmed to replicate what works. This tendency serves us well in established environments—the most reliable path to success in any existing market is to copy competitors while making minor improvements. However, this strategy can never produce transformative change. True entrepreneurship diverges fundamentally from this copying instinct. It begins when someone faces a problem where copying fails—either because no solution exists or because existing solutions cannot address their specific circumstances. This realization marks the transition from conventional business to entrepreneurship, forcing individuals to venture beyond established practices into uncharted territory. The entrepreneurial journey feels distinctly uncomfortable precisely because it contradicts our biological and social programming. Outside the safety of established norms, entrepreneurs lack the feedback mechanisms that typically validate decisions. They operate without experts to guide them, as expertise can only exist for what has already been done. This explains why entrepreneurship cannot be effectively taught in conventional settings—students inevitably copy the examples presented rather than developing the mindset needed to forge entirely new paths. This distinction explains why entrepreneurs often seem to lack conventional qualifications for their ventures. A. P. Giannini had no banking experience before founding Bank of Italy (later Bank of America). Herb Kelleher was a lawyer, not an airline executive, when he helped create Southwest Airlines. Ingvar Kamprad was just seventeen when he started IKEA. Jim McKelvey was a glassblower with no payments industry experience when co-founding Square. Their success came not from domain expertise but from approaching problems without preconceptions. The ability to resist copying proves particularly challenging because it requires fighting both internal and external pressures. Internally, we seek the comfort of following established patterns. Externally, investors, partners, and potential customers often demand familiarity. This explains why entrepreneurs frequently operate with limited resources—their inability to articulate their vision in familiar terms makes securing support difficult. What looks like stubbornness to outsiders is often the necessary persistence to continue when conventional wisdom suggests retreat. This perspective reframes our understanding of qualification for entrepreneurship. The traditional view that expertise precedes innovation reverses the actual sequence—successful innovation creates expertise, not the other way around. The most important qualification for entrepreneurship isn't prior knowledge but the willingness to start despite its absence, combined with the persistence to continue through inevitable challenges.

Chapter 4: Squaring Up Markets: How Innovation Expands Rather Than Disrupts

Contrary to popular narratives about "disruption," the most transformative entrepreneurial ventures don't primarily destroy existing markets—they expand them by including previously excluded participants. This process, which McKelvey calls "squaring up," creates entirely new value rather than merely redistributing existing resources. The market expansion pattern appears consistently across successful Innovation Stacks. Bank of Italy provided banking services to immigrants and working-class citizens whom traditional banks ignored. IKEA made well-designed furniture accessible to middle-class families who previously couldn't afford new furnishings. Southwest Airlines brought air travel to people who had only traveled by bus or car. Square enabled millions of small merchants to accept credit cards for the first time. In each case, these companies didn't primarily steal customers from incumbents—they created entirely new customer segments. This expansionary effect explains a seeming paradox: established competitors often initially ignore entrepreneurial ventures despite their innovative potential. The entrepreneurs aren't directly threatening existing customers; they're serving people the incumbents never wanted. When Southwest Airlines entered the Dallas-Houston market in 1971, it was the thirty-fourth largest air travel market in America. Within a year, it became the fifth largest—not by taking passengers from other airlines, but by putting people on planes who had never flown before. The same pattern appeared when IKEA entered South Korea in 2015; the entire furniture market grew by 7%, benefiting even established local competitors. Government data and market research typically miss this expansion potential because they measure only existing participants. When Southwest began, aviation authorities insisted people "didn't want to fly"—based on surveys of people who were already flying. These measurements create blind spots around potential markets that don't yet exist. Entrepreneurs see beyond these limitations, recognizing millions of "invisible" customers waiting for solutions. The expansion-versus-disruption distinction matters profoundly for entrepreneurial strategy. Focusing on disruption orients ventures toward existing markets and competitors, subtly encouraging copying. Focusing on expansion directs attention toward unserved customers and their unique needs, fostering genuine innovation. This orientation explains why entrepreneurs often seem indifferent to conventional competitive analysis—they're not primarily competing against existing players but creating entirely new possibilities. When disruption does occur, it typically results from external factors rather than direct competition. The massive wave of airline bankruptcies following Southwest's success stemmed primarily from industry deregulation, not Southwest's actions. Similarly, the transformation of banking followed from broad economic and social changes, not merely Bank of Italy's innovations. True entrepreneurs build rather than destroy, expanding possibilities rather than reallocating existing resources.

Chapter 5: Customer-Centric Defense: Protection Against Competitive Attacks

When established competitors finally recognize the threat posed by entrepreneurial ventures, they typically respond with overwhelming force. Every company examined faced existential attacks: Amazon undercut Square's pricing by 30%, major airlines conspired to block Southwest's fuel access, traditional furniture manufacturers boycotted IKEA's suppliers, and established banks attempted to thwart Bank of Italy through regulatory manipulation. Yet remarkably, each entrepreneurial venture not only survived these assaults but emerged stronger. Their resilience stems from a fundamental strategic advantage: while conventional businesses focus primarily on competitors, entrepreneurial ventures maintain unwavering focus on customers—particularly the previously excluded customers they've brought into the market. This customer-centric orientation provides powerful protection against competitive attacks through several mechanisms. First, the mathematics of Innovation Stacks makes them exceptionally difficult to replicate. Each element in the stack introduces independent probability of successful copying. Even if a competitor has an 80% chance of successfully copying each individual element, the probability of replicating a fourteen-element stack drops to approximately 4%. The problem compounds because elements aren't truly independent—they form dynamic systems where changes to one element affect all others, creating complexity beyond what even sophisticated competitors can model. Second, entrepreneurial companies build uniquely strong relationships with their customers. Since they serve previously excluded participants, these customers have no preexisting expectations or habits. The entrepreneurs effectively train these customers in entirely new ways of participating in the market—Southwest taught passengers to board in groups and choose their own seats, IKEA taught customers to assemble their own furniture, Square taught merchants to operate without traditional customer support. These trained customers become resistant to competitive offers, as demonstrated when Southwest's passengers chose to pay double Braniff's fare to maintain access to Southwest's superior service. Third, successful entrepreneurs harness psychological principles that strengthen customer loyalty. They create "moments of wow" that capture attention, leverage the "processing difficulty effect" where slight challenges enhance memorability, and build trust through consistent delivery on promises. These elements combine to create powerful barriers against competitive incursions. This defensive approach manifests in counterintuitive responses to competitive threats. When Amazon attacked Square, Square's leadership chose to "do nothing"—maintaining their existing approach rather than matching Amazon's pricing or features. This wasn't passivity but recognition that their Innovation Stack already provided optimal solutions for their customers. Similarly, when Braniff slashed fares on Southwest's Dallas-Houston route, Southwest responded not by matching prices but by offering business travelers a complementary bottle of premium liquor with full-fare tickets—maintaining revenue while highlighting the aspects of their service valued beyond mere price. The focus on customers rather than competitors transforms competitive threats into strengthening experiences. As Herb Kelleher noted, "Being attacked was very useful to us. It created a warrior spirit." These challenges force entrepreneurial organizations to clarify their values and deepen their Innovation Stacks, ultimately making them more resilient.

Chapter 6: Low Price Philosophy: Strategic Advantage Beyond Lowest Pricing

A counterintuitive pattern emerges across successful Innovation Stacks: they consistently maintain low prices even when competitive dynamics suggest they could charge more. This commitment to low pricing transcends simple market positioning to become a fundamental strategic philosophy with far-reaching implications. The distinction between having a "low price" versus the "lowest price" proves crucial. While competitors obsess over relative pricing—constantly adjusting based on what others charge—entrepreneurs with Innovation Stacks establish pricing based on internal values rather than external benchmarks. They maintain prices as low as possible while delivering quality experiences, regardless of what competitors do. This seemingly subtle difference creates profound advantages. First, low pricing builds exceptional customer trust. When Southwest offered fares at a fraction of competitors' prices, IKEA made well-designed furniture affordable to average families, and Square charged small merchants less than half the industry rate, they weren't merely competing on price—they were demonstrating values. This consistency creates a form of trust that transcends transactional relationships, fostering loyalty that withstands competitive challenges. Customers recognize the fairness inherent in pricing that reflects actual costs rather than opportunistic exploitation. Second, pricing philosophy aligns internal organizational culture. When employees see their company maintaining low prices rather than maximizing short-term profits, it communicates powerful messages about organizational values and priorities. This alignment influences thousands of daily decisions that cannot be controlled through rules or oversight. Southwest's culture became legendary partly because employees could see the company prioritizing passenger accessibility over profit maximization. Similarly, IKEA's commitment to making design affordable created cohesion among its diverse global workforce. Third, low pricing creates sustainable competitive advantage by leaving minimal space for new entrants. When an Innovation Stack enables significantly lower costs, maintaining correspondingly low prices forces potential competitors to replicate the entire stack simultaneously rather than implementing incremental improvements. For example, if Square's Innovation Stack enabled them to process payments for $5 when competitors charged $10, maintaining a $5 price created an unbridgeable gap. Had they charged $9 to maximize short-term profits, competitors could have implemented partial improvements to reach $8, then $7, gradually closing the gap. The power of this pricing philosophy becomes evident when companies abandon it. After Herb Kelleher retired, Southwest gradually increased prices until they exceeded competitors' by up to 145%. While Southwest had previously faced only one successful competitor (JetBlue) during Kelleher's entire tenure, five new airlines successfully emerged in the decade following this pricing shift. Similarly, Bank of America's abandonment of A.P. Giannini's commitment to fair pricing transformed it from a beloved institution into one of America's most-hated companies. This perspective contradicts conventional business school teaching about capturing "excess value" through strategic pricing. Yet the entrepreneurs studied consistently resisted this approach, recognizing that short-term profit maximization undermines long-term competitive position. As Herb Kelleher explained: "We never tried to maximize revenues... our low costs enable us to charge low fares"—maintaining their "strongest, sharpest competitive weapon."

Chapter 7: The Entrepreneurial Journey: Lessons from Historical Case Studies

The entrepreneurial journey follows remarkably consistent patterns across industries and eras, revealing fundamental truths about innovation that transcend specific contexts. By examining entrepreneurs separated by decades or centuries, we discover that seemingly personal experiences reflect universal aspects of venturing beyond established practices. Fear remains a constant companion for entrepreneurs, but its presence doesn't indicate weakness or poor preparation—it signals appropriate recognition of genuine uncertainty. Every entrepreneur studied experienced profound fear when departing from established practices. The critical distinction lies not in avoiding fear but learning to function effectively despite it. McKelvey's experience as a pilot offers insight: learning skills while afraid creates capabilities that function reliably under pressure. This explains why entrepreneurs often appear unusually comfortable with discomfort—they've developed habits of productive action amid uncertainty. Feedback scarcity creates another universal challenge. Innovation, by definition, precedes validation. Entrepreneurs must persist through extended periods without the positive reinforcement that typically guides behavior. This explains the importance of intrinsic motivation tied to solving problems entrepreneurs personally care about. When validation inevitably arrives, it comes too late to guide the journey—like receiving a bulletproof vest after being shot. This delayed feedback pattern makes historical perspective particularly valuable, as it reveals the eventual impact of innovations that appeared questionable when introduced. Humility emerges as a surprising but essential entrepreneurial characteristic. While popular narratives often portray entrepreneurs as supremely confident visionaries, the historical record reveals profound humility in their approaches. A.P. Giannini never became a millionaire despite building the world's largest bank, constantly redistributing his wealth. Herb Kelleher celebrated employees rather than himself. This humility isn't merely a personality trait but a functional necessity—admitting what you don't know creates the mental space needed for genuine innovation. The myth of expertise represents another consistent pattern. Entrepreneurs repeatedly succeed in fields where they lack conventional qualifications. This pattern doesn't suggest expertise is worthless—it indicates that expertise becomes relevant only after innovation establishes new domains. The qualification for entrepreneurship isn't prior knowledge but willingness to begin without it, combined with stubborn persistence through inevitable challenges. Perfect problems provide the essential motivating force for entrepreneurial journeys. While money and fame might seem like obvious motivators, they prove surprisingly weak compared to solving problems entrepreneurs genuinely care about. When A.P. Giannini returned to work after the San Francisco earthquake to help "the little fellow" rebuild, when Herb Kelleher continued Southwest's legal fight at his own expense, when McKelvey persisted through Square's challenges—they demonstrated motivation transcending conventional rewards. These patterns reveal entrepreneurship as a uniquely human endeavor—neither mystical gift nor formulaic process, but a choice to solve problems through whatever means necessary. The journey begins not with special knowledge or resources but with recognizing a problem nobody has solved and taking the first step toward addressing it. As McKelvey concludes: "Now that you have read this book... you can no longer look at a problem and say, 'Nothing can be done.'"

Summary

Innovation Stacks represent a powerful framework for understanding how transformative companies emerge and thrive despite seemingly insurmountable challenges. When entrepreneurs confront problems that cannot be solved through copying, they embark on journeys that force them to develop interconnected systems of innovation that become nearly impossible for competitors to replicate. This process—beginning with the audacity to solve "perfect problems" and continuing through the evolution of integrated solutions—creates enterprises that don't merely disrupt existing markets but expand them to include previously excluded participants. The entrepreneurial path diverges fundamentally from conventional business approaches through its relationship with copying. While copying represents humanity's default strategy for survival—embedded in our genetics, education, and social structures—entrepreneurship begins precisely where copying fails. This divergence explains why entrepreneurship feels so uncomfortable yet produces such extraordinary results. It reveals why qualifications for entrepreneurship have little to do with prior expertise and everything to do with persistence through uncertainty. Most importantly, it demonstrates that transformative innovation lies within reach of anyone willing to identify problems they genuinely care about and pursue solutions beyond established practices. The knowledge that Innovation Stacks evolve from necessity rather than genius makes entrepreneurship accessible to all who recognize problems waiting to be solved.

About Author

Loading...

Jim McKelvey

Read more