Many of us believe that Innovation should have a role in the Mission of IndyCar racing. The details will require compromise.Let us examine our proposed Mission Statement, courtesy of Citizen John.
Mission Statement
IndyCar exists to provide a superior auto racing product for the avid and casual fan alike that is compelling, entertaining and fun to watch. IndyCar is committed to making every interaction a fan has with IndyCar an exciting, enjoyable and memorable experience.
Innovation & Leadership: Comments and Suggestions
Mr. Cooper
"The role of leadership in testing automotive technology is essential. It is part of the value of the brand dating back to Carl Fisher. Without it, your Mission Statement would have no teeth. It is not unique in the marketplace. If it is not more than entertaining - which it needs to be - it is a drop in the sea with nothing special to merit attention."
Mr. Cooper suggests that we add to the Mission Statement, "...provides leadership in testing 21st Century automotive solutions."
Citizen John
"I'm having a hard time translating innovation into increased fan interest. Sure, there would be some interest, but as to substantial interest 'because of' innovation, I don't know. Fan interest in sports seems to center around skill and strategy of the participants... how many people will watch IndyCar 'because' it is the leader in testing automotive solutions for 21st Century needs?"
Dave NJ
"This is great in theory, but it seems to me that the tech challenges for transportation in the 21st Century are about energy efficiency. It certainly isn't speed and power, except within the constraints of energy efficiency. I'm not convinced that you can create a compelling racing product around what amounts to a fuel economy run."
BC has suggested that we "uphold the heritage" of the Indy 500, which he believes would provide an implicit tip of the cap to "a strong tradition of innovation."
Osca
"Since every era brings new ideas, 'innovation' means not only new ideas, but also adapting to and improving the ideas that are already available."
VirtualBalboa
"Innovation will always initially be limited to the race track early on and then move from there with public demand and interest, assuming that you have a testing ground for that sort of thing. Nothing wrong with that."
GreyMouser noted that he likes the idea of adding innovation to the Mission Statement because it would provide IndyCar a clear point of product differentiation with regards to NASCAR. He also believes that innovation would provide IndyCar a market space to which no other sanctioning body has laid claim.
Roggespierre's Review
I tend to believe that Innovation must be central to our Mission. Like new contributor IndyIan, I also believe that innovation must evolve from the lowest points on the supply chain. This might enable IndyCar teams to augment their own brands in the marketplace. Ultimately, that would be a good thing for IndyCar racing.
Mr. Cooper's word, "leadership," is, I think, an underrated and essential element of his suggestion. IndyCar lacks identity at present in part because it does not lead the auto racing market in any area.
Furthermore, I do believe that energy efficiency and fuel consumption can be made to be both interesting and entertaining. This issue is one that I fully intend to discuss thoroughly when we consider our "whole product" offering.
Request for Proposals
So, allow me to issue an RFP to all readers of and contributors to The Indy Idea. Please submit the language that you would use in the Mission Statement to denote Leadership in Relevant Automotive Innovation.
We shall then discuss and determine the optimal solution for the time being. Rest assured that we will revisit the Mission Statement after we complete the Product phase of our Marketing Plan.
Roggespierre
Fuel limits are, I think, the easiest to understand and quickest fix. Plus, Danica might win again!
ReplyDeleteOh, I keed, I keed. Seriously, I like that idea...and I like equivalency formulas for engines. But that's just my opinion.
Ok: I'll take first crack at this, someone has to anyway.
ReplyDeleteI think our mission statement can be three discrete senteneces to wit:
1) We are committed to working with our partners to provide a superior auto racing product for the avid and casual fam alike that is compelling, entertaining, and fun to watch.
2) We are committed to providing the leadership that allows the race teams to test new applications of existing technologies, or emerging ones, to answer the challenges of the 21st century and beyond.
3) Every interaction a fan or partner has with our organization MUST be an exciting, enjoyable, and memorable one.
VB: The idea of fuel limits sounds suspiciously like a way to turn this into a "fuel economy run". At least that's the way most of the teams will approach it at first.
ReplyDeleteindyian: I like your mission statement so I adapted it to what I posted in the previous blog. Hope you don't mind.
GreyMouser.
ReplyDeleteWell stated, and I find NOTHING that, at this time, I would add!
osca
Roggespierre said...
ReplyDelete"Please submit the language that you would use in the Mission Statement to denote Leadership in Relevant Automotive Innovation."
With the global energy challenge, the freedom and independence of individual mobility is in jeopardy. By providing leadership in testing automotive innovations, IndyCar strives to do its part to ensure the freedom and liberty - to go where we want, when we want by means of personal transportation - remains intact for current and future generations.
-John
I think leadership in this case is writing the rules and optimizing the costs in such a way that teams have the most flexiblility to chosse how they wish to work within the specifications given. But that gets us into the technical side of the process. Which is a whole diffferent kettle of fish.
ReplyDeleteLeading the way in Innovative Racing so that racing becomes compelling again...I don't know,it doesn't sound right. In a way I just can't explain, we need to be innovative leaders now in our formation of this so that the teams can be stars in the future.
ReplyDelete-indyian
First, I want to note a couple of contributions that I see as significant.
ReplyDeleteGreyMouser: In general I admire your patience and desire to strive for common ground.
John: I am encouraged by your draft as you demonstrate vision, leadership and differentiation. It needs to include a commitment to the fan and their entertainment. I have always felt that the sweet spot is the synthesis between entertainment and unique market positioning relevant to the future direction of the automotive industry.
To that end, I am still partial to this short, sweet (unique and bold, too!) proclamation:
"IndyCar exists to provide consumers of motor sport their premier choice of auto racing entertainment with leadership in testing 21st century automotive solutions."
Tom: Thanks for the kind words. We keep coming back to that elusive term "leadership". Are we to, or do we want to, define leadership at this phase or are we just going to throw the term out there and worry about defining it later? But your short ptihy statement tells me nothing about differentiating us from NASCAR or F1. Implicitly, it does differentiate us from the other two groups but will the casual fan be able to make that distinction? The avid fan I'm sure will have no problem with the distinction.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I included "existing technologies" in my statement is that there is the real possibility that some new application of an existing technology may lead to a revolutionary solution to an automotive challenge. Odds are slim, but you never know.
Indyian: I agree with you "innovative racing" so that racing becomes compelling again is almost an oxymoron. What makes racing compelling is the relative speed differential between cars and seeing how the drivers try to narrow that differential. Seeing how a driver sets up a pass on an opponent is compelling. Seeing drivers on oval tracks actually having to DRIVE their car as opposed to just piloting them around the track, is compelling. I coould go on but I think you get what I mean. Innovation, in and of, itself is not compelling. How that innovation is used is a different story.
ReplyDeleteGreyMouser said...
ReplyDelete"Seeing drivers on oval tracks actually having to DRIVE their car as opposed to just piloting them around the track, is compelling."
I couldn't agree more. I have long thought that this is one of the most important elements that needs to return in order to restore Indy racing.
It has become a lost skill in Indy racing and I think one of the primary reasons why current Indy drivers always flop when they cross over to the dark side. Say what you will about NASCAR, but you do have to know how to handle a car at speed on an oval track to succeed.
--Dave
Roggespierre said…
ReplyDelete"I tend to believe that Innovation must be central to our Mission."
"Furthermore, I do believe that energy efficiency and fuel consumption can be made to be both interesting and entertaining."
I really don't see innovation per se providing all that much entertainment value for the fans, and races decided by fuel efficiency and fuel consumption seem to be detested more than embraced.
I understand the place innovation played in auto racing's past, but innovation is simply a means to an end, and that end was speed. People just aren't all that interested in innovation for innovation's sake; it's the tangible consequent of innovation, the thrill of speed that fans pay to see.
The positioning and differentiating advantages with the innovation theme are noted, but the actual benefits to the race fans have been overlooked and slighted. Frankly, the topic of innovation has inverted the entire paradigm of our discussion from one of designing the product to fit the market to finding a market for our product, i.e. the same disastrous path we've accused the current regime of traversing.
Again, I'm not suggesting that innovation should not factor into the IndyCar equation, but unless some actual and direct benefits to auto racing fans can be demonstrated, I don't see its place in the mission statement. I doubt we'd see mention of potato farmers, cattle ranchers or their respective industries in McDonald's mission statement.
-John
Ok, John has a good point. Reading the comments here and before, I think what's going on is:
ReplyDelete1) We all want to see a product defined in part by organic innovation, just as IndyCar was in the past.
2) THAT product was defined in parallel by the pursuit of raw speed.
3) When we removed raw speed from the equation, "innovation" means something different to each of us here.
4) We can't figure out where and how to place the concept of innovation at the broad level of mission statement, though we all feel strongly that it is somehow integral to the sport.
So, in light of that, and in light of the fact that Roggespierre has mentioned that he has a few potentially compelling ideas for future IndyCar innovation:
I argue that we should either leave the mission statement solely fan-focused (i.e. something like John's original proposition) or insert a very broad endorsement of the concept that reminds us all that YES, this is something we think is somehow essential. Then, after Roggespierre's (and others') specific ideas are discussed, it will be much easier to revisit the original mission statement and decide how we will include innovation in it.
Incidentally, this is what I wrote for my mission statement proposal:
"We endeavor to provide fans with a superior auto racing product, delivering all of the excitement and intrigue that has traditionally defined IndyCar racing [and the Indianapolis 500]. To this end, we are committed to attracting the best racing talent in the United States* and to providing our race teams with the opportunity to independently seek out and employ diverse and innovative technical solutions. Every interaction an avid or casual fan has with IndyCar should be an exciting, enjoyable and memorable experience."
*Or "world", but if we're trying to serve AMERICAN fans...
The idea of fuel limits sounds suspiciously like a way to turn this into a "fuel economy run". At least that's the way most of the teams will approach it at first.
ReplyDeletePerhaps. It may also lead to a new generation of Jaguar XJR-11s. I'm willing to take that risk right now.
GreyMouser: Not sure how to be clearer about how the mission statement I suggested differentiates from NASCAR and F-1. By culling out "21st automotive solutions," we have a series that has an intended purpose unlike any other. Some can argue that tech-crazy F-1 (especially with innovations like KERS) is in this space, but I think it is pretty clear that is not their expressed mission. Certainly you cannot seriously believe this would not distinguish IndyCar from NASCAR. C'mon.
ReplyDeleteAs for leadership, it is essential. What do we want to do, follow? We need to be bold and assert our space. For example, in BC's mission statement, he says, "endeavor to." Endeavor to? We're going to "try real hard?" No, we are going to succeed. We are going to break away from the pack, be bold, lead.
Look, there is nothing that says sustainable energy cars can't be beasts. But they will be different. We have a market torn right now between cars with stones and those being responsible with limited resources. That conflict resides in a growing number of consumers looking to make the right choice for themselves and their communities. What if IndyCar led the way to a new breed that delivers the best of both needs?
What I have seen of the mission statements proposed thus far is nothing new. They don't differentiate, they don't set a course of leadership, they are not unique. To say we want to innovate with new and existing technologies is so general and could be applied to any series on Earth. To say we want to be entertaining could hardly be classified as breakthrough thinking.
I keep writing because it would be a shame for this effort to go in the wrong direction. Without a clear purpose this forum will devolve to just another on-line venting tank with egos clamoring to out-do the next guy. We need change that makes sense. We need to move in a direction that is relevant to the automobile industry. Where is that industry going?
Think about it...meanwhile...
Check this out from an FIA Commission: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/FIA/2009/Documents/fia_env_sus_ms.pdf
What I am proposing will happen at some point in time. Now, do we lead or offer up another lame "me-too?"
Tom:
ReplyDeleteOn further thought, I retract my earlier criticism of your short "pithy" (I mean that in the nicest way) mission statement. It does differentiate us from NASCAR. I think King Bill the 1st said it best regarding NASCAR, We are not in the motorsports racing business but in the motorsports "entertainment" business.
"21st century automotve solutions" is why I used the phrase "We are committed to". I think that implies that we are going to seek those solutions and apply them to racing, for the betterment of the general automotive product.
But John does raise an interesting point. Are we trying design a series that fits the market or are we trying find a new market for our product "as we accuse our current series of trying to do". I don't think we are trying to find a new market but rather an untapped/unused space in the current market.
Re: The FIA paper. I think the FIA is going to have a much harder time getting everyone to agree on what it is they wish to accomplish. I'm not sure if what they have proposed is a vision statement or mission statement since it has characteristics of both. All the more reason for IndyCar to be there first.
GreyMouser:
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to do - and what I hope all of us want to do - is establish a space or category within the larger market context - Motor Sport - that IndyCar can own. I don't care what anyone says, the Indy 500 is still a big deal. Unfortunately, it seems to have lost its way. We need to be clear what we stand for, how we lead and we are distinct from anything else that is available. In the last few years it seems to be trying to become a hybrid of elements of NASCAR and F-1. What is produced is confusing.
As for that FIA press release. Note that it is from a commission. I don't know the details, but I am relatively certain this was a group that was commissioned by the FIA to assess future directions in the automotive industry and the leadership role motor sport - almost assuredly F-1 - can play in that direction.
You're right, IndyCar needs to lead. Inherently, when you lead, you are different. There is risk in leading, to be sure. At this juncture, though, the alternative of not leading, of not being bold, is to continue to present a confusing value proposition that seems to mimic elements of the leading categories of the overall sport. This, I fear, will have disastrous results.
I'd like to see us close on the mission statement for now (revisit in a couple weeks) and start to move to the details of defining the core and whole product that would support it. The formula of car I have in mind would not be at all what I think people expect when they jump to "green" assumptions.
My definition of a mission statement is to describe 'what we will do' to achieve our vision. For example, if my vision is to lose weight, then I'd describe what I was going to do to lose weight as my mission. IF (mission) I exercise and diet, THEN (vision) I will lose weight. Additionally, the vision should follow as a logical consequence of the completed mission: if I diet and exercise, then the logical consequence is that I'll lose weight.
ReplyDelete1. If (mission) IndyCar provides a product that is entertaining, compelling and exciting, then (vision) IndyCar shall be the clear number-one choice among auto racing consumers in the United States.
2. If (mission) IndyCar provides leadership in testing 21st Century automotive solutions, then (vision) IndyCar shall be the clear number-one choice among auto racing consumers in the United States.
Wording and verbiage aside, with (1), completing the mission implies achieving the vision. With (2) however, completing the mission doesn't directly imply achieving the vision, in my mind there's a missing-link.
Now, TC argues a good point, that providing an entertaining, compelling and exciting product may not be in and of itself enough to achieve IndyCar's vision, and that may very well be the case. But the point I would hope to make is that innovation would serve the function of making the product more entertaining, more compelling and more exciting, providing a qualitative improvement of an entertainment product.
Despite how it may appear, I'm open to pursuing either path (1 or 2) or some hybrid, to achieve the vision. To achieve our vision, a qualitative approach may be insufficient and/or positioning IndyCar in a broader emerging category may prove more promising, but at this stage, IMO, we don't have enough information about the market and our options to serve it at this stage.
Maybe a working model for a mission statement containing 'all' the elements agreed on as being beneficial, without having to decide on a hierarchy or either/or decision at this point, might help move things along.
-John
John,
ReplyDeleteYour post is very much in line with the way I'm thinking about at this.
How about something like:
IndyCar shall provide a product that is entertaining, compelling and exciting while demonstrating leadership in testing emerging automotive solutions.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteJohn,
Your post is very much in line with the way I'm thinking about at this.
How about something like:
IndyCar shall provide a product that is entertaining, compelling and exciting while demonstrating leadership in testing emerging automotive solutions.
Uhh.. forgot to sign
--Dave
Hi Dave, Hi Dave :-),
ReplyDeleteI think we have most of the ingredients on the table, it's just the recipe and how all the pieces come together and in what order we're lacking at the moment. The latest post from our host should help in weighing and assessing the merits of the various pieces.
As to:
"…while demonstrating leadership in testing emerging automotive solutions."
I'm thinking we need to emphasize the benefits associated with innovation and how it leads, complements and/or integrates with the product. Something like:
"IndyCar exists to provide a superior auto racing product that is compelling, exciting and entertaining to watch. Positioning itself as the leader in testing automotive innovation will enable IndyCar to provide an interesting, diverse and continually evolving product that will produce the greatest quality of auto racing entertainment, appealing to the greatest quantity of auto racing fans and auto enthusiasts alike."
-John
Wording and verbiage aside, with (1), completing the mission implies achieving the vision. With (2) however, completing the mission doesn't directly imply achieving the vision, in my mind there's a missing-link.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
That's a fantastic point. I think we haven't really focused on the concept of "completing mission = achieving vision."
I know we're at least temporarily moving on (for the better, I am sure), but your post got me thinking:
What if we were to simulate a potential vision and mission statement combination from, say, IndyCar (or whatever it was called) in 1960 and/or 1970 and/or 1980, based on the paths the series went down during those decades? Do you think that sort of thing could help us better grasp the current challenge of defining what IndyCar will be - besides just "popular" - moving forward?
Good idea, BC.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to choose a couple words that best describe or captures my experience of racing back in the day, 'exciting and captivating,' come nearest to what I felt at the time. I don't know if that's where you were going with your idea or had more particulars in mind, but if the mission statement said something to the effect, "to produce a product that is exciting and captivating…" I think they hit that mark.
-John
Yeah...I would guess that a hypothetical customer-focused mission statement at any point in IndyCar's history would have to include such words as "exciting, captivating, thrilling."
ReplyDeleteI'm sort of wondering, though, about whether we could find some kind of principles in the history that are not innately customer-focused. Like, whether or not we could say "based on these decisions the leadership made between 1960 and 1970 we can surmise that the series was operating under Principle X, a principle that was not designed specifically to appeal to fans."
Because we've been trying very hard to put together a mission statement that includes 1) "Serve the fans" and 2) "Principle X" (which we can't agree on).
And maybe you're right, maybe there should be no Principle X. But I bet it existed in the past, in various incarnations. And if we could a) determine what, if any, these principles were and when they existed and b) the concurrent dynamics of series popularity, we probably would gain a very good understanding of what sort of "Principle X" we could aim for that has proven in the past both integral to IndyCar and compelling for fans.
A the very least, it would be very interesting to dig for it.
BC,
ReplyDeletePerhaps 'Principle X' is profit. The principals and participants more than likely saw getting involved as being profitable in some manner. Profit need not be solely financial; public stature, recognition and fame are strong motives for action. Then simply those who profited by making a living doing what they enjoyed doing, mainly the drivers and teams.
I think what gets lost in the discussion of a mission or purpose statement, is the purpose of the mission statement is to help the company make money. It's just we do it with the enlightened self-interest that says, "in order to get what we want, we must first give others what they want."
So maybe the powers-that-be back then, based their decisions on making money or 'earning' a profit, and the downfall came about when the modern powers-that-be started 'spending' money. (Spending being synonymous with wasting or foolishly investing.) Eccelstone and the France's seemed to be doing okay financially; ditto their products.
Just some thoughts, though.
-John