lego transformation case study

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How Lego clicked: the super brand that reinvented itself

The revival of Lego has been hailed as the greatest turnaround in corporate history, ousting Ferrari as the world’s most powerful brand. Johnny Davis reports

F rom its founding in 1932 until 1998, Lego had never posted a loss. By 2003 it was in big trouble. Sales were down 30% year-on-year and it was $800m in debt. An internal report revealed it hadn’t added anything of value to its portfolio for a decade.

Consultants hurried to Lego’s Danish HQ. They advised diversification. The brick had been around since the 1950s, they said, it was obsolete. Lego should look to Mattel, home to Fisher-Price, Barbie, Hot Wheels and Matchbox toys, a company whose portfolio was broad and varied. Lego took their advice: in doing so it almost went bust. It introduced jewellery for girls. There were Lego clothes. It opened theme parks that cost £125m to build and lost £25m in their first year. It built its own video games company from scratch, the largest installation of Silicon Graphics supercomputers in northern Europe , despite having no experience in the field. Lego’s toys still sold, particularly tie-ins, like their Star Wars and Harry Potter -themed kits. But only if there was a movie out that year. Otherwise they sat on shelves.

“We are on a burning platform,” Lego’s CEO Jørgen Vig Knudstorp told colleagues. “We’re running out of cash… [and] likely won’t survive”

In 2015, the still privately owned, family controlled Lego Group overtook Ferrari to become the world’s most powerful brand. It announced profits of £660m, making it the number one toy company in Europe and Asia, and number three in North America, where sales topped $1bn for the first time. From 2008 to 2010 its profits quadrupled, outstripping Apple’s. Indeed, it has been called the Apple of toys: a profit-generating, design-driven miracle built around premium, intuitive, covetable hardware that fans can’t get enough of. Last year Lego sold 75bn bricks. Lego people – “Minifigures” – the 4cm-tall yellow characters with dotty eyes, permanent grins, hooks for hands and pegs for legs – outnumber humans. The British Toy Retailers Association voted Lego the toy of the century.

When The Lego Movie came out in 2014 the film snob website Rotten Tomatoes awarded it a 96% approval rating: only Oscar nominees 12 Years a Slave and Gravity matched it. This year’s follow-up, The Lego Batman Movie , outperformed the last “proper” Batman movie, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice , to such a degree that DC Comics now faces a genuine problem: audiences overwhelmingly prefer the Dark Knight in his pompous and plastic version voiced by Will Arnett , rather than Ben Affleck ’s portrayal.

Lego’s revival has been called the greatest turnaround in corporate history. A book devoted to the subject, David Robertson’s Brick by Brick: How Lego Rewrote the Rules of Innovation , has become a set business text. Sony, Adidas and Boeing are said to refer to it. Google now uses Lego bricks to help its employees innovate.

Lego’s saviour is the aforementioned Vig Knudstorp – a father of four, perhaps not uncoincidentally – who arrived from management consultants McKinsey & Company in 2001 and was promoted to boss within three years, aged 36. “In some ways, I think he’s a better model for innovation than Steve Jobs,” Robertson has said.

Last month I flew to Billund, a small town in the Jutland peninsula where Lego was founded. The landscape was flat and grey, but as I drove from the airport a large primary coloured arm or head would occasionally appear though the pine trees: the Lego Group owns several buildings here and has decorated the landscape accordingly. I was immediately in a good mood.

“Billund was built to function, not to please,” explained Roar Trangbaek, Lego’s cheerful, bearded publicist. “There’s not a lot of fun here.” He meant there wasn’t a lot to do there – it’s hard to imagine the nightlife is up to much – but given that 120m Lego bricks are manufactured here every day, fun was very much the point of the place. As if to prove it, Trangbaek handed me his business card. It was a Minifigure of himself.

The following morning the Lego Group was due to announce its latest annual results. Today was an opportunity to meet some of its key employees, tour the factory and be among the first to step inside Lego House – a 130,000sq ft marvel that will open in September, and is expected to draw 250,000 visitors a year. It has been designed by Bjarke Ingels , the hottest name in architecture right now, whose commissions include Google’s HQ, the new World Trade Center and last year’s Serpentine Pavilion. Ingels certainly seems to have enjoyed himself: Lego House resembles 21 giant Lego bricks stacked into a 30m tower. Visitors can climb up to the rooftop garden and down the other side, pausing to take in attractions, restaurants, play zones and a gallery dedicated to fan-made Lego extravaganzas. Life-sized Lego sculptures had been placed around the interior – a cop, a firefighter – while real-life construction workers in hi-vis tabards beavered away around them, a surreal sight.

Lego had compensated for the disruption to the town’s shops by allowing them to exclusively sell Lego kits of the Lego House, the only place in the world they’ll be available. (For Lego’s numerous cult fans, this is a massive deal.)

Vig Knudstorp rescued Lego by methodically rebuilding it, brick by brick. He dumped things it had no expertise in – the Legoland parks are now owned by the British company Merlin Entertainments, for example. He slashed the inventory, halving the number of individual pieces Lego produces from 13,000 to 6,500. (Brick colours had somehow expanded from the original bright yellow, red and blue, sourced from Piet Mondrian , to more than 50.) He also encouraged interaction with Lego’s fans, something previously considered verboten. Far from killing off Lego, the internet has played a vital role in allowing fans to share their creations and promote events like Brickworld , adult Lego fan conventions. A year before James Surowiecki’s landmark book The Wisdom of Crowds was published, Lego launched its own crowdsourcing competition: originators of winning ideas get 1% of their product’s net sales, designs that so far include the Back to the Future DeLorean time machine, the Beatles’ Yellow Submarine and a set of female Nasa scientists.

“Lego has this incredible ability to engage with people and that has single-handedly enabled it to weather very, very difficult seas,” says Simon Cotterrell, from brand analytics firm Interbrand. “What’s made them successful over the past 10 years is their ability to create new entities, movies, TV shows, by partnering with brilliant people. They’ve said: ‘We might not make as much money if we outsource it, but the product will be better.’ That mentality is very Danish. It comes from saying: ‘We’re engineers. We know what we’re good at. Let’s stick to our knitting.’ That’s a very brave thing to do and it’s where a lot of companies go wrong. They don’t understand that sometimes it’s better to let go than to hang on.”

It also started making hit toys again. As well as putting a focus back on classic Lego lines like City and Space, it has launched the ninja-themed Ninjago line, Mindstorms, kits that allow you to build programmable Lego robots, aimed at teens. And for grown-up kids, Lego Architecture, replicas of the Guggenheim, Burj Khalifa and Robie House , that last one not for the feint-hearted or time-poor – it contains 2,276 bricks. Most impressively for a company with a customer base that in 2011 was 90% boys, it finally cracked the girls’ market. Lego Friends features a reconfigured “Mini-doll” and centres on five characters in the fictional Heartlake City. None of this has happened by chance. Lego is said to conduct the largest ethnographic study of children in the world.

“We call it ‘camping with consumers’,” says Anne Flemmert Jensen, senior director of its Global Insights group. “My team spends all our time travelling around the world, talking to kids and their families and participating in their daily lives.” This includes watching how kids play on their own and with friends, how siblings interact and why some toys remain perennial favourites while others are relegated to the toy box. Children are fickle – as the makers of forgotten “must-have” Christmas toys, like Pogs and Furby, will concede.

Ninjago was crowdsourced: its first iteration featured skeletons as enemies because tests proved they were the most popular baddies among six-year-old boys, globally. “Ninjas crystallised themselves because we were, like: ‘What’s the greatest hero entry point?’” says Cerim Manovi, senior design manager and creative lead on the line. “We showed them superheroes, everything – but ninjas just grabbed kids right there.”

Lego Friends took four years of research (plus a $40m global marketing push) to get right.

“One of the main things was they couldn’t really relate to the Minifigure,” says Mauricio Affonso, Friends’ model designer. “It’s too blocky. Boys tend to be a lot more about good versus evil, whereas girls really see themselves through the Mini-doll. They wanted a greater level of detail, proportions and realism.”

Lego Friends sets (bakery, amusement park, riding camp, etc) tend to feature something else missing from boys’ sets: a loo. The boys don’t care, the girls’ pragmatism demanded it.

Roar Trangbaek shows me the original Lego house, where the company’s founder Ole Kirk Christiansen lived. It’s now a private museum that tells the Lego chronology through artefacts, packaging and toys. More than one adult visitor has been known to burst into tears when confronted by a key line from their childhood: in my case the Space Lego of the mid-1970s. (Lego gets inundated with requests for re-releases, but they won’t do it. Their focus is the kids of now and tomorrow, not yesterday.) Christiansen was an expert carpenter when the Great Depression hit. He figured the one thing people would always find money for was toys for their children. His company motto is carved into a plaque here – “det bedste er ikke for godt” (Only the best is good enough) – something borne out when Christiansen’s son Godtfred returned home one day to proudly inform dad he’d saved them some cash by only applying two of the usual three coats of varnish to a wooden duck. He got a tongue- lashing for his trouble.

“It is a good story, but it’s also a true story,” says Trangbaek.

In 1946, against everyone’s advice, the family invested in a newfangled plastic-injection moulding machine. Later they adapted Croydon-based inventor Hilary Fisher Page’s self-locking bricks (billed his “sensible toy”) – plastic cubes with two rows of four studs to enable stacking. The final part of Lego’s success clicked into place in 1958 when it created its “system”. Where previously they’d made toys of all shapes and sizes now every brick fitted with every other: everything was backwards compatible. “We’ve got the bricks, you’ve got the ideas,” advised a 1992 Lego catalogue. A mathematician recently deduced that just six eight-stud bricks of the same colour could be combined 915,103,765 ways.

During the factory tour we saw some of those bricks being created. Here, 768 moulding machines work 24/7, 361 days of the year. There was a constant hiss: the sound of raw granulate being fed into the vast machines. Then something akin to Wonka magic, brightly coloured pieces of joy materialising at the other end. Lego’s quality control and precision is rigorous. As any parent who’s trodden on a piece knows, Lego is hard. The bricks have to be strong enough to hold together, but not so strong they can’t easily be pulled apart by a child. They call it “clutch power”. It is a huge industrial process, with similar plants in Hungary, China and Mexico. “Our idea is to have factories located close to key markets,” Trangbaek explained. Most companies make product where it’s cheapest then ship it. Not Lego. “It’s much more costly for us to lose a sale,” he said. “If you go to a toy store and you don’t find the product there on the shelf, you will be disappointed. But you will also not leave the shop without another toy.”

Lego is increasingly concentrating on bridging the physical and the virtual. This year it rolled out Lego Life, a social network for kids too young for Instagram to share their creations, gaining “likes” from peers and Lego characters alike. “Lego Batman can comment in character. ‘That’s awesome – would have been better in black and yellow,’” says Dieter Carstensen , head of digital child safety and the Lego Life team.“That kind of stuff.” There’s also Nexo Knights, a video game where powers are unlocked by scanning Lego pieces. They’re researching VR and AR. “Some of the things we’re looking at are very near to being feasible now,” says William Thorogood, an irrepressibly bouncy Brit, and the senior innovation director with Lego’s creative play lab. “Other things are very exciting, but probably not feasible for 10 years, depending on how mature the tech becomes.” Later this year we can look forward to The Lego Ninjago Movie , whose tone looks every bit as irreverently daft as its predecessors.

The next morning in Billund, Lego announced the highest revenues in its 85-year-history. Since December the company has been run by another Brit, Bali Padda, the first non-Dane in charge, after Vig Knudstorp moved into a new role to expand the brand globally. Asia, with its booming middle class, is a focus.

“The reality is that the last few years the growth has been supernatural,” Julia Goldin, Lego’s chief marketing officer, tells me. “When you look at the proportion of revenue that’s coming out of the mature markets it becomes more and more challenging with the level of penetration. But we look at every year starting at zero because you have to recruit every child again and make the brand exciting for them. That becomes a good challenge, of course.”

Earlier I had met Bo Stjerne Thomsen, the director of research and learning with the Lego Foundation, an independent body that owns 25% of the Lego Group and studies early childhood development through play. (It has partnered with Unicef in South Africa, and funded the world’s first professor of play , at Cambridge University)

Thomsen produced two plastic bags containing a few red and yellow bricks, part of a basic kit they use to engage learning.

“Quickly build a duck,” he instructed me. “Everybody can usually do it in 40 seconds.”

We set to work. Thomsen’s duck had two outstretched wings. Mine had a red bill, a red slab for feet and a yellow block for a tail.

“Oh, that’s fun!” he said. “I like that.”

There was no wrong or right duck, of course. That was the point. “It’s about the process of making and investigating and learning,” Thomsen said.

“How fast do you think anyone can do a duck?” Thomsen asked.

I’m not sure, I said. Ten seconds?

“Ten seconds? OK, let me count.”

Then he slammed another set of pieces straight down on to the table.

“That’s my duck!” he beamed. “I just sliced it up so it’s ready for the oven. Ha ha!”

Lego is a serious business. It just happens to be in the business of fun.

• The Observer

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Smart. Open. Grounded. Inventive. Read our Ideas Made to Matter.

Which program is right for you?

Through intellectual rigor and experiential learning, this full-time, two-year MBA program develops leaders who make a difference in the world.

A rigorous, hands-on program that prepares adaptive problem solvers for premier finance careers.

A 12-month program focused on applying the tools of modern data science, optimization and machine learning to solve real-world business problems.

Earn your MBA and SM in engineering with this transformative two-year program.

Combine an international MBA with a deep dive into management science. A special opportunity for partner and affiliate schools only.

A doctoral program that produces outstanding scholars who are leading in their fields of research.

Bring a business perspective to your technical and quantitative expertise with a bachelor’s degree in management, business analytics, or finance.

A joint program for mid-career professionals that integrates engineering and systems thinking. Earn your master’s degree in engineering and management.

An interdisciplinary program that combines engineering, management, and design, leading to a master’s degree in engineering and management.

Executive Programs

A full-time MBA program for mid-career leaders eager to dedicate one year of discovery for a lifetime of impact.

This 20-month MBA program equips experienced executives to enhance their impact on their organizations and the world.

Non-degree programs for senior executives and high-potential managers.

A non-degree, customizable program for mid-career professionals.

Accelerated research about generative AI

Disciplined entrepreneurship: 6 questions for startup success

Startup tactics: How and when to hire technical talent

Credit: Ivan Diaz / Unsplash

Ideas Made to Matter

Innovating in existing markets: 3 lessons from LEGO

Beth Stackpole

Sep 21, 2021

With the invention of the interlocking plastic brick, a favorite toy of generations, LEGO was a poster child for business innovation — that is, until it wasn’t.

The Danish toymaker’s trajectory from industry trailblazer to the brink of bankruptcy to sustained recovery shows there’s more to innovation than sheer luck or a wholesale focus on disruption.

“No innovation lasts forever,” said David Robertson, a senior lecturer in operations management, in a recent webinar hosted by MIT Sloan Executive Education. “Sometimes you get hyper growth for a couple of years, sometimes you get steady growth for longer. But innovations run their course.”

From its inception in the 1930s to its brush with bankruptcy in 2003 and its subsequent turnaround, LEGO tried every approach in the book to managing innovation, some resulting in spectacular success and others in great failure, said Robertson, author of “ Brick by Brick: How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of Innovation and Conquered the Global Toy Industry .”

Based on years of research and what he’s seen at LEGO and other companies, Robertson advocates for an expansive approach to innovation — helping customers get more value from existing products by offering innovative complementary products, services, and business models.

“It’s how Apple turned itself around, it’s how GoPro got five years of 90% growth, it’s how Sherwin-Williams gets twice the price per gallon of paint than other paints that are functional equivalents,” explained Robertson, who also teaches an executive education course on the topic . “Marvel Comics turned itself around in the same way.”

Among the innovation lessons to be learned from those firms: Have a variety of tools in the toolbox and don’t be afraid to use them, listen deeply to your customers, and prepare for a steady diet of continuous reinvention to remain relevant, even as an iconic brand.

LEGO’s brick-by-brick approach

LEGO was a small family business that grew steadily until the management reins were handed off in the late 1970s to the grandson of the founder and newly minted MBA, Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, who quickly unleashed a wave of innovation.

Related Articles

With the younger Kristiansen at the helm, LEGO branched out into the Technic brand — a more sophisticated building system to attract older children — and launched the first mini figure and fantasy action play sets, fueling 15 years of growth during which the company doubled in size every five years.

Growth slowed in the 1990s for a number of reasons, including a rise in digital play experiences from companies such as Nintendo and Sony, the rise of Toys “R” Us and other big box stores, the expiration of LEGO’s brick patents, and the relocation of production of Mattel’s and Hasbro’s products to China, lowering the cost of their competitive toys.

LEGO responded in 1999 by refocusing its innovation efforts on revolutionary products that would reinvent the nature of play. “They became convinced that if all they offered was another box of bricks, they would become a commodity,” Robertson said. “They believed they needed to disrupt themselves before somebody else did.”

After a series of missteps that included the rollout of electronic toys for toddlers and a digitally connected action hero, LEGO found itself nearly bankrupt in 2003. In the rush to innovate, the firm lost sight of its core — physical construction-based play. After layoffs, emergency loans, and other measures aimed at staving off bankruptcy, LEGO turned those innovation miscues into a new strategy — one that precipitated a turnaround and laid the groundwork for further growth.

Among the key lessons that companies with a mature product line can follow to innovate:

Respect what made you great. Sometimes knowing where not to innovate is just as important as knowing where to innovate, Robertson said. LEGO learned that in a new digital landscape it was no longer enough to offer a box of plastic bricks — the brick had become a commodity. But the brick was still necessary, because that’s what customers expected of the brand.

Through trial and error and a number of failed digital-only initiatives, LEGO discovered customers wanted digital experiences that complemented core offerings, rather than replaced them.

Centering innovation around the brick-based construction experience through new stories, games, and experiences, exemplified by the fan-favorite Bionicle product line, is what drove customers back to the LEGO brand and returned the company to profitability.

“You try to understand who your customer is, what they care about — that’s the way we should think about innovation,” Robertson said. “You need to be dating your customer, not fighting your competitor.”

Maintain a customer-centric development process. When the big box stores took over from its ecosystem of small toy stores, LEGO lost an important channel for getting reliable customer feedback. LEGO began to evolve product development practices to support design thinking principles, empowering experts to come up with ideas for new products based on that critical customer input.

Today, LEGO regularly engages children in the process of character development, storytelling, and providing feedback on new playset ideas. “LEGO has a great expression for why they listen to kids when developing new toys,” said Robertson.  “Mads Nipper, the former head of marketing and product development, liked to say, ‘Kids will never lie to you about whether something’s fun or not.’”

Develop a family of complementary innovations to distinguish yourself from competitors. Innovation leaders need to lean on a range of different approaches for innovation, since tactics will vary depending on the scenario and business goals. It’s important to nurture a culture that’s able to shift gears if traditional methods don't deliver desired results.

“You need to learn how to play chords, not keys, on the innovation ‘piano,’” Robertson said. “Pursuing multiple, complementary innovations that harmonize to create something is much better than any one key alone.”

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Innovating a Turnaround at LEGO

• David Robertson and Per Hjuler

Five years ago, the LEGO Group was near bankruptcy. Many of its innovation efforts—theme parks, Clikits craft sets (marketed to girls), an action figure called Galidor supported by a television show—were unprofitable or had failed outright. Today, as the overall toy market declines, LEGO’s revenues and profits are climbing, up 19% and 30% respectively in […]

Reprint: F0909B

Though the overall toy market is declining, LEGO’s revenues and profits are climbing—largely because the company revamped its innovation efforts to align with strategy.

Five years ago, the LEGO Group was near bankruptcy. Many of its innovation efforts—theme parks, Clikits craft sets (marketed to girls), an action figure called Galidor supported by a television show—were unprofitable or had failed outright. Today, as the overall toy market declines, LEGO’s revenues and profits are climbing, up 19% and 30% respectively in 2008.

• DR David Robertson ( [email protected] ) is a professor of innovation and technology management at IMD. Per Hjuler ( [email protected] ) is the LEGO Group vice president of product and marketing development. For more, visit www.innovationgovernance.net.

Partner Center

HBS Cases: LEGO

Although it isn't part of the admissions criteria, experience playing with LEGOs can come in handy at Harvard Business School.

When Stefan H. Thomke teaches his new case about the iconic toy company, he gives students eight-studded LEGO building bricks to figure out how many different ways they can be combined. Thomke's experience goes back a long way—as a kid growing up in Germany he participated in a LEGO competition. As an adult, though, his interests lie more in the business behind the bricks. "When you've written many cases you have a gut feeling that one like this could be really great," he says.

Thomke, the William Barclay Harding Professor of Business Administration, wrote the case with Harvard Business School's Jan W. Rivkin, the Bruce V. Rauner Professor of Business Administration, and Daniela Beyersdorfer, associate director of the HBS Europe Research Center.

LEGO explores how the company-one of the most profitable toymakers in the world-grew to global dominance from humble beginnings; the mistakes that led it near bankruptcy; and why one turnaround attempt failed while a second succeeded. LEGO executives were unusually supportive about the case-writing process, Thomke says. "We had access to everybody; they wanted the story to be told truthfully, with all the good and the bad."

Building At The Start

Part of that access included a visit to a wood craftsman's workshop in the small town of Billund, Denmark, where LEGO began, in 1916. Carpenter Ole Kirk Kristiansen eventually shifted the business from making houses and furniture to crafting wooden toys. He based the name of his new venture on the Danish words for "play well" (and, as it turned out, the Latin words for "to assemble"). His motto "Only the best is good enough" would later be carved into a wooden plaque and hung in the workshop. These themes of good play and quality products were both bedrocks and touchstones for future generations of LEGO toy makers.

Godtfred Kirk Kristiansen represented the second generation, working alongside his father at age 12. The LEGO brick played with by kids and adults around the globe came into being during Godtfred's tenure. He considered it a unique, sturdy, simple product—a system—that offered endless opportunities for creative fun, and drew up a list of product characteristics including "long hours of play" and "quality in every detail" that was distributed to everyone in the company.

Like his father, Godtfred paid careful attention to every aspect of the business, applying, for example, his knowledge of material science and production technology to the brick-manufacturing process. It's because of these precise specifications that bricks made under his watch are interchangeable with those available today. Godtfred's cautious nature extended all the way to the profit margins: he championed slow, steady growth. Because of this, it could take years for a new product to go to market. Green bricks, for instance, appeared in play sets only after a decadelong decision-making process-and the idea to include them came from Godtfred's son (and third-generation toymaker), Kjeld.

The snail's pace served the company well, as did the grandson of its founder. Under Kjeld's management, product demand was so high at times that executives actually found themselves discussing ways to slow sales.

A Shock To The System

That all changed in the early 1990s as seismic shifts pounded the toy market. Big Box toy discounters trampled mom-and-pops and lowered prices dramatically. Meanwhile, birth rates declined, children had less time to play and not much interest in toys that didn't offer instant gratification. "These changes did not play well to our strengths," observed current CEO Jørgen Vig Knudstorp in the case.

Serious jolts were also taking place in the LEGO Group. Out of work for a year following a serious illness in 1993, Kjeld appointed a five-person management team to help him run the company when he returned. The group focused mainly on driving growth. When a benchmarking study revealed LEGO's global name recognition was on par with industry giants like Disney, the team started churning out new products and ideas to leverage the brand's untapped value. A line of LEGO-branded children's wear was created and a division of the LEGO Group was charged with pitching book, movie, and TV ideas. LEGO building sets became increasingly complex with more unique components.

While the number of LEGO-branded items grew, sales did not, and in 1998 the company suffered its first financial loss. "Their top-line growth was slowing down but their cost was accelerating, so they were starting to lose some significant money," says Thomke.

Danish turnaround expert Poul Plougmann was hired to reassemble LEGO and staunch the red ink. "He comes in and … does things by the book," says Thomke. "He lays people off, he streamlines some things, he globalizes." And yet the financial picture grew worse. "He's basically going by the turnaround book, but it doesn't work."

One continuing problem: the company's growing complexity was choking it. Adding more bricks made products harder to assemble, forecasts harder to determine, and inventory harder to manage. Depending on the kit, there was either too much inventory, or no inventory at all, and restocking could take months.

"You had this multiplier effect of added complexity that went through the entire supply chain," Thomke says.

The LEGO Group had also gotten too far away from the core values it had been building on for the better part of a century. The toymaker found itself needing to turn around its turnaround.

Outside The Family

Enter Jørgen Knudstorp. He was just 35 years old when Kjeld promoted him from director of strategic development to CEO in 2004. (Kjeld retired that same year.)

Like Plougmann, he had no family ties to the company. Unlike Plougmann, his turnaround attempt succeeded. Knudstorp's slow-it-down approach of careful cash management, focusing on core products, and reducing product complexity certainly contributed to that success. It would also take re-engaging with customers, many of whom passed a love of LEGOs to their children while still connecting with the toys themselves. "One of the insights Jørgen had when he became CEO was that he needed to reconnect with the community [of loyal LEGO fans], one of the most powerful assets the company had," says Thomke. "It was a huge part of the comeback."

Knudstorp worked hard to define the core business of the company. "How you work with, and experiment outside of, the core of your business is part of that balance," explains Thomke.

Knudstorp recognized that innovation was part of that core, but he'd also seen the result of unconstrained creativity, so new product design began to be informed by market research, user feedback, and how well the toys matched the vision of quality creative play laid out by its founding fathers. Putting parameters on how people innovate had the paradoxical effect of making them better at it.

Reining in the creative process was part of a larger push by Knudstorp to reduce overall complexity within the organization. On the supply chain side, he did away with many of the unique brick components added during Plougmann's tenure, and eventually decided to bring brick manufacturing back in-house to ensure quality control.

Finally, Knudstorp made big changes to the management team, firing five of seven manufacturing executives and appointing a new leader for the team. A psychoanalyst was brought in to teach the management team how to identify decision-making made by logic versus emotion.

Sustainable And Balanced

It turns out that LEGOs promote lifelong learning. While the bricks themselves teach children the fundamentals of construction and creativity, the company's almost century-old history of management change has important lessons for businesspeople. "Managing sustainable growth is also about managing a balanced business system," says Thomke. "Complexity is something you need to watch very closely."

Controlling complexity, clarifying the core of its business, and engaging the larger community helped save the LEGO Group. Although he was not a Kristiansen by birth, Knudstorp's management style and business ideals closely mirrored those of its founding fathers. Only the best was, and is, good enough.

• marcos Vizcaino Gerlach
• KAM, HABERMAA?
• Romuald Kepa
• self-employed
• Ted Gutelius
• Dr. Mrunal Asher
• Director, ITM's Institute of Management & Research, Nagpur
• Kapil Kumar Sopory
• Company Secretary, SMEC(India) Private Limited
• Managing Director, E M Consutlancy
• Phillip Gelman
• Managing Partner, MoneyInTheTill.com
• Anders Sorman-Nilsson
• Managing Director, Thinque
• Noman Ahmed Khan
• CEO, BiMS COLLEGE
• Chris Sutcliffe
• Owner, The Bean People
• 11 Apr 2024
• In Practice

Why Progress on Immigration Might Soften Labor Pains

• 15 Apr 2024

Struggling With a Big Management Decision? Start by Asking What Really Matters

• 02 Apr 2024
• What Do You Think?

What's Enough to Make Us Happy?

• 04 May 2015
• Research & Ideas

Need to Solve a Problem? Take a Break From Collaborating

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• Innovation and Management
• Change Management
• Entertainment and Recreation

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• HBS Case Collection
• Format: Print
• | Language: English
• | Pages: 23

About The Authors

Jan W. Rivkin

Stefan H. Thomke

Related work.

• July 2013 (Revised February 2014)
• Faculty Research

Jørgen Vig Knudstorp: Reflections on LEGO's Transformation

• LEGO  By: Stefan Thomke and Jan W. Rivkin
• Jørgen Vig Knudstorp: Reflections on LEGO's Transformation  By: Stefan H. Thomke

Technology and Operations Management

Mba student perspectives.

• Assignments
• Assignment: RC TOM Challenge 2018

Open Innovation at Lego – The Back Beat in “Everything is Awesome”

After avoiding bankruptcy in 2003, LEGO has effectively used open innovation to align with customer demands and to become a global leader in toy innovation. Now, can LEGO’s use of open innovation maintain its growth with increasing digital competition?

The Interdependency Between LEGO’s Success and Open Innovation

In the face of digital competition, LEGO’s journey defending its market share has not been all fun and games. With 2017 revenues declining 8% (first decline in over a decade) and layoffs totaling 1,400 [1], LEGO needs a new growth strategy to compete in a slowing industry (the global toy market grew 1% in 2017) [2]. When faced with these pressures in 2003, LEGO’s initial response was to offer variety through new products, such as computer games and theme parks. However, these introductions had unintended consequences, adding complexity for the customer, inventory challenges for LEGO, and supply delays for retailers. [3]

LEGO’s famous turnaround strategy came from engaging its expansive customer base. LEGO utilized The Future Lab to develop low-risk, low-cost innovation techniques that led to rapid creation of minimum viable prototypes. [4] The goal was to generate customer feedback on a small scale before making substantial investments, illustrating LEGO’s philosophy that, “people don’t have to work for us to work with us.” [4] To further this practice, the company launched, LEGO Ideas , an online crowd-sourcing platform, allowing customers to share and to vote for ideas they wished to see as additions to the product line. LEGO Ideas yielded hundreds of suggestions annually, employing social media to generate actionable data. Focusing on products that would sell, LEGO was able to reach new audiences through its extensive physical footprint and brand awareness. Two successful efforts were LEGO Architecture (iconic building sets), which increased LEGO’s popularity with adults, and LEGO Friends, increasing its female presence. [5]

Open Innovation – Still the Answer

Now, to understand its next growth phase, LEGO is using open innovation to strategically increase its global footprint, widen its target audience and define its long-term product strategy.

Pathways to Just Digital Future

In the short-term, LEGO is expanding in China by partnering with Tencent (Chinese internet company) to create a safe digital platform for children, allowing LEGO to experiment with digital in a region where it has found some digital success. [6] At its Shanghai stores, LEGO is also launching its exclusive “Future of Shanghai” product. Utilizing a small-scale launch, LEGO offers four different spaces for consumers to build their own future city, generating immediate feedback. [6] Additionally, LEGO is utilizing Indiegogo Enterprise (an innovation validation platform) to test ideas through pilot projects, the first is LEGO FORMA , targeting adults looking for a creative outlet. [7] These pilots are being run in limited batches to crowdsource, to rapidly iterate and to ascertain demand.

In the long-run, LEGO is attempting to build a bridge between traditional toys and the digital world. [8] To lay the foundation for this middle ground, LEGO’s red Duplo train is an opportunity to test the market’s appetite for products that offer this in-between, with an optional mobile app. [8] Beyond bricks and toys, LEGO has been experimenting with a variety of play experiences in digital  – LEGO Life (children social media network) and LEGO Fusion (virtual mobile app) – and a variety of movie, television series and LEGO-themed playgrounds. [9] LEGO’s initial entry in the digital category has largely failed, while the later initiatives have found commercial success. [9]

Recommendation for the Future

With that lesson, LEGO needs to remember that while digital offerings not only increase competition, they also create a point of difference. LEGO’s value proposition to parents, the purchasers, is to provide children with an alternative to video games and to “do something physical that is good for fine motor skills, 3-D spatial realization, and creative construction.” [5] LEGO can leverage this in the short term and utilize open innovation to understand how it can better penetrate the educational market, increasing products targeted at developmental skills.  In a similar vein, Lego Serious Play , LEGO’s innovation seminars, use 3D models to help business professionals uncover deeper insights and increase performance. [10] LEGO can diversify its growth by expanding these non-play services.

To deepen its open innovation strategy long-term, LEGO should increasingly focus on outbound innovation, generating ideas with suppliers and retailers to foster successful partnerships. [11] This will combat the typical problem with open innovation and rapid prototyping – as products quickly enter the market, there is little time to innovate downstream processes. [12]

What’s Next?

While open innovation holds great promise for LEGO, the question remains – how do you consistently and effectively incentivize your partners to engage with your efforts? [13] Upon success in finding the right incentives, the question then becomes – what impact will virtual reality have on the toy industry and will open innovation be enough?

Word Count: 799

1)      The LEGO Group, 2017 Annual Report (Denmark: The LEGO Group, 2017), p. 5-6.

2)       “Toy Industry Sales Grew by 1% in 2017,” press release, January 25, 2018, PR The NPD Group, https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2018/toy-sales-globally-and-in-the-us-both-grow-by-1-percent-in-2017-reports-the-npd-group/, accessed November 2018.

3)      Mocker, Martin and Ross, Jeanne. “The Problem with Product Proliferation.” Harvard Business Review . (May-June 2017): 5.

4)      The Leadership Network, “5 Sustainable Innovation Practices that Saved Lego,” Innovation Management, November 7, 2016, [https://theleadershipnetwork.com/article/lego-sustainable-innovation], Accessed November 10, 2018.

5)      Robertson, David. Brick by Brick: How LEGO Rewrote the Rules of Innovation and Conquered the Global Toy Industry (New York, NY: Random House, 2013), p. 8-39.

6)      “Lego Video Zone Goes Live on Tencent Video,” press release, May 25, 2018, on LEGO website, [https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2018/may/lego-group-and-tencent], accessed November 2018.

7)      “Lego Creative Play Lab Takes Pilot Project to Indiegogo for Open Innovation,” press release, September 27, 2018, on LEGO website, [https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2018/september/lego-forma], accessed November 2018.

8)      Milne, Richard, “Lego’s Niels Christiansen: picking up the pieces,” The Financial Times, August 19, 2018, [https://www.ft.com/content/955ec4de-8f3f-11e8-bb8f-a6a2f7bca546], accessed November 2018. – duplo

9)      Robertson, David. “Lessons from LEGO: What do you do when your current growth phase ends,” The Leadership Network – Innovation Management, June 1, 2018, [https://theleadershipnetwork.com/article/lessons-from-lego-what-do-you-do-when-your-current-growth-phase-ends], Accessed November 10, 2018.

10)   Dann, Stephen. “Facilitating co-creation experience in the classroom with Lego Serious Play,” Australasian Marketing Journal 26 (May 2018), p. 121-131.

11)   Supply Management, “Put procurement at heart of innovation, says Lego buyer,” October 16, 2018, [https://www.cips.org/en/supply-management/news/2018/october/put-procurement-at-heart-of-innovation-says-lego-buyer], Accessed November 10, 2018.

12)   Cina, Amelia and Cummings, Stephen. “Open innovation communication – improving strategy implementation in the public sector,” Policy Quarterly Volume 14, Issue 1 , (February 2018), p. 74.

13)   Bughin, Jacques and Chui, Michael. “The next step in open innovation,” The McKinsey Quarterly (June 2008), p. 3.

Student comments on Open Innovation at Lego – The Back Beat in “Everything is Awesome”

As a huge LEGO fan as a kid, I find this really fascinating. It’s noteworthy to see how LEGOs, which are predominately physical toys, have been able to leverage the digital world to get into open innovation. It’s interesting that your recommendation is to focus on the innovation with suppliers and retailers — my immediate thought would be doubling down on the connection with their end users, but I can see how the other folks in the supply chain play a big part.

To your final question, my bet is that LEGO attempts to bridge the gap between their physical toys and VR, not making the physical bricks entirely obsolete. It seems similar to the leap that was made by the LEGO Mindworks product that was released many years ago, which introduced motors and other mechanical items that allowed children to program the LEGO creations to move.

Along with Mike, I find it very interesting how this tangible product is venturing into the intangible. My main concern with VR and other purely digital platforms is that if you remove the blocks, is the product no longer LEGO? I believe part of why LEGO has continued to exist in the toy market is because of the universal satisfaction children get from the ability to physically create, destroy and create again. It’s hard to imagine how children could benefit from the motor skill development on a digital platform. To me, removing the blocks leaves you with just another digital game but with the name LEGO on it. Open innovation seems like an exciting method to learn how to better serve the interests of their suppliers, retailers and consumers, but I would caution against sacrificing what makes LEGO LEGO when exploring other digital platforms for their consumers.

Awesome article! I was also a big fan of LEGO as a kid, and was very interested to see how they’ve evolved and survived the bankruptcies of other peer companies like Toys-R-Us. As you cite that LEGO’s survival hinged upon their digital partnerships and open innovation platform, wanted to add one more consideration into the mix – as LEGO partners with more digital partners like Tencent, they should also be wary about the growing rise of anti-screen parents [1]. As kids have become more digitally dependent, parents have in turn become more strict, and we might see a decline in usage, which could force LEGO to pivot once again.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/phones-children-silicon-valley.html

Good point – I think this is why LEGO is targeting the middle ground between digital and traditional. Specifically, their digital offerings have been very strategically targeted in markets where they’ve previously had local success and strong partnerships, i.e the investment with Tencent and China. Additionally, in the Tencent example, LEGO is directly responding to Chinese parental desire for safer digital platforms for their children. In other offerings, LEGO has been quick to remove failed digital products from the market, keeping with the spirit of open innovation and the idea that “the customer knows best.”

Jaclyn – great work here. Though the product outsourcing seems like a great idea and it has worked well, I’m reminded of something we talked about during our Gap case in Marketing – consumers are very bad at predicting their own future preferences. The issue may be less prevalent here given tastes in toys may be less fickle than tastes in clothes. However, there will be a delay from the time LEGO sources ideas from customers to the time the products appear on store shelves. I wonder if they have much exposure to consumer preferences changing during the “throughput time” of the product. All in, though, it may still yield better results than creating products without consumer input.

That’s an interesting point. I think the beauty of LEGO’s offering is that within their traditional brick toy sets, the end design is ultimately determined by the user. LEGO should keep in might that concern as they offer more specialized products, especially in the digital area, that do not offer this original flexibility to customize output.

Awesome essay, Jaclyn! As a huge Lego fan, I found it very intriguing to see how Lego is trying to interact with the new generation of children. On your first question, I really liked your recommendation that they partner up with retailers and suppliers for further idea generation and product prototyping. That didn’t even cross my mind as I was reading this as I was so focused on the consumer. I think it would be extremely interesting to hear from toy retailers (maybe a store like Target) as they are seeing the daily reactions of children to toys and are also seeing what parents are pulled towards in the aisles.

To your second question, I worry about Lego venturing into VR for children because, as you mentioned, parents want Legos so that their children stay away from screens. Would they lose their current customer base if they moved towards VR? I think a crowd sourcing platform to hear from parents would be critical to ensure they are not losing any part of their customer base to keep up with new technology. One idea that I think could combine the best of Legos and new technology is for children to build a scene with physical Legos and then be able to explore the scene with a VR experience. I won’t lie, I am not sure if or how this is possible, but open innovation is supposed to draw out even the craziest ideas!

Thanks for the comment. I agree that VR is likely too far from LEGO’s core competencies to successfully implement and appreciate you elaborating on the point. My concern was that the impending increase in VR offerings in the video game industry more broadly may significantly increase the competition LEGO faces, challenging the capacity and resilience of Lego’s open innovation strategy to foster growth in the future.

Thanks! I think education is the front where LEGO could potentially succeed in terms of open innovation and commercial success. While LEGO seems to expand into various kids-related categories, I feel have tremendous potential to leverage on new technologies and their adoption by youth. Firstly, while 3D printing is a hot topic among adults, LEGO could easily mimic the learning potential through its existing products. By structuring the construction experience around designing and “printing” new structures with bricks, they can convey complex concepts at entry level. Secondly, LEGO has incredible resources and storytelling capabilities to move older kids into a VR-like experience where they could build larger structures and learn how things work in real life. Based on what kids end up building and learning most efficiently, LEGO can repackage this information into new products and services that tie customers closer to the brand.

I think open innovation is a very relevant alternative for mature and declining industries. The toys industry is a good example of that. The important consideration that LEGO should have in mind is that other industry players are also betting on it. For instance Mattel created My Mattel Ideas, which is a portal for people to contribute with ideas of products (see link below). This doesn’t represent a threaten per se but it is important that LEGO executes the right strategy so this can become a competitive advantage (as you mentioned above).

https://www.mymattelideas.com/ideas/myidea

This is an awesome article — also a childhood lego fan here. This is a fascinating case-study on how a company is using open innovation to grow their companies. Two things came to mind here: 1. How does Lego maintain engagement with Lego Ideas users? 2. Is Lego worried at all about competitors potentially stealing some of the ideas from the Lego Ideas platform? I’d be curious to know the distribution of people who source good ideas on the Lego Ideas platform and what kind of relationship/engagement Lego (the company) has with active users. With these open ideas platforms, how do people find these platforms and what is their average level of engagement. Presumably, you’d like to keep the active users for longer period of time but I wonder how companies incentivize users to stay engaged. On the competitor front, Lego has some unique brand qualities that other competitors cannot replicate but I do wonder to what degree competitors leverage the Lego Ideas platform for “inspiration” and what legal bounds there are about copyright/trademark -ing these open-platform ideas.

All in all, this was a fantastic move on Lego’s part that has clearly yielded positive results for the company and increased brand loyalty amongst its users.

I loved legos as a kid and would definitely consider trying out a product tailored to adults. I had no idea that they were pushing in this direction.

Do you have any insight as to how they’re handling the transition between minimally viable prototype / product –> full product release? I also recently saw that Lego was releasing products focused on teaching young kids to code. This interested me because it opened the door to partnerships with schools and local governments. Do you think that there is similar potential here where Lego could partner with organizations trying to spur creativity among children?

It is interesting that across industries, the challenge for open innovation remains long- term engagement of innovation partners. It may be than in LEGO’s case, there is a campaign or a reward they could provide their innovators (essentially their customers). Another idea is to create a platform for enthusiasts, and provide enough stimulating content to drive engagement. In addition, they may need to find new potential sources of innovation outside of their customer base.

Cool findings, Jaclyn! I’m also a Lego fan, and it breaks my heart a bit to think of them doing poorly. It would also break my heart if they steered too much in the direction of digital, and away from their physical building blocks. Though I agree with you that VR might be a stretch for them, I wonder if you could keep the blocks, and kids could one day “navigate” through the physical structures they build using VR. Or perhaps whatever they built, could be uploaded and inserted into a computer game. I mostly hope that parents are indeed steering their kids away from screens and back to physical toys, which I believe are generally better for their physical and social development. I did find it very cool that Lego let people way in on what they want to see in the future. Seems like the best way to make sure they give their customers what they want! At least the adults..

I agree with Mark’s concerns on the side of the customers not always knowing what they want. I would also like to know which customer age groups are providing this feedback. I remember loving LEGO blocks as a kid, but I am hesitant as to whether the feedback they are getting today is from kids as some of the ideas seem more as coming from adults (architecture does not sound like a child’s ask). If this were the case, I would be concerned that we would be neglecting the very customer base that has made LEGO a favorite toy brand. In this case what would you think would be the appropriate channels to ask for children’s feedback? Do you think balancing a “creative director’s” input and a customer’s suggestion would yield better toys for the future?

Great article. I think Lego has used open innovation effectively. However, from a customers perspective my inputs on innovation will typically be very marginal or in some cases not practical. Lego will have to manage the risk of listening to customers needs too easily. The company has to be rational in terms of what innovations are commercially viable. Also, Lego will need to invest in R&D to develop the next “big thing” in Lego given a customers recommendation is most likely limited to the products he or she has already seen. To really grow dramatically, Lego will have to introduce a product that the customer did not know they wanted in the first place.

Loved the article – thanks, Jaclyn! While I think that Lego has correctly identified the direction it needs to move in to keep up with the digital age and has used open innovation to produce products with known consumer demand, I also think that Lego, with it’s immense brand equity, is uniquely positioned to do something really disruptive in the toy industry. I like your idea of collaborating with the other parts of the supply chain to generate more ideas, and I think that relying on consumer feedback heavily for idea generation can prevent truly novel innovation.

Another random thought – with its digital focus, Lego has the opportunity to make its product a lot more collaborative in nature. I can envision a digital platform that allows children to team up with other children across the world in designing and building anything from a rollercoaster park to a fortress and gamifying the combined results. While I think there’s the very valid concern of Legos being the antithesis of video games, I believe Lego has the ability to add a hands on, tangible aspect to gaming in its quest to build connected toys.

Lego is a well-known brand around the world. It lends credibility on children related projects and has a large group of loyal followers. I would imagine this is why Tencent agreed to partner with Lego in China: Tencent is good at digital products in China while Lego is a major player in the kids’ market. The combination produces a powerful product for children in China. In a similar vein, Lego can seek partners in areas that both Lego and its partner wish to grow into.

As seen in the case of Toys R Us, rival manufacturing and digital distribution competition are bigger threats to brick and mortar stores than virtual reality in the near term. While VR may one day take over, it is difficult to see how parents will replace Lego products, physical toy that is proven to stimulate children’s brain activities, with virtual reality/computer, products that are traditionally known to slow down children’s brain development.

Thanks, Jaclyn. I was not aware of the troubles my beloved childhood toy went through and how they recovered. I’m a bit wary of the reliance on the strategy of crowdsourcing as the primary method for innovation. Mark B. mentioned above and was similarly my thinking as I read your story, it’s something that is exciting and working now but how is the company thinking about a potential trend away from consumer engagement? I’d be curious to see how they think of trends as an organization and how these match with the ultimate consumer. Against virtual reality, I do see the organization as insulated in some ways given their requirement for physical pieces. A move away from this would change who they are as a company and remove many of the selling points they currently have i.e. non-screen, motor development. Lastly, I thought your point regarding moving to non-play spaces would be worth exploring, I wonder how much their brand would stand in the way of business professionals taking them seriously.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Digital Transformation Strategy: The LEGO Case

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the digital transformation of LEGO and to figure it out in innovation-oriented growth decisions. To this end, the study here examines the transformation process of the company from diversification to smart specialization strategy in more detail. Besides, where digital architecture for toys requires many innovations at the same time, authors discuss what LEGO does to add value. More importantly, the typologies of innovation strategy elucidate the changes and improvements that foster digital transformation.

• Related Documents

The concept of the Regional Scientific and Educational Cluster in the Conditions of Neo-Industrial Modernization and Smart Specialization of Donbass

The article is devoted to the analysis of preconditions and factors of neo-industrial modernization and smart specialization of the regions of Ukraine, in particular, the Donetsk region. The analysis of development of innovative cycles of economic conjuncture is carried out, the urgency of modernizations of transformations of economy in view of probable concentration of the sixth technological way on material (neoindustrial) manufacture is emphasized. A review of the digital transformation process in accordance with the DESI 2020 Index, as well as the results of research in the implementation of innovations in industrial enterprises, the need to strengthen the digital transformation of all spheres of life for the Donetsk region, taking into account recent changes in the regulatory framework (draft Law on Deoligarchization). It is stated that education, science and innovation are the drivers of modernization of the economy of any country, and in general, the driver of the formation of the infrastructural environment in the context of the fourth industrial revolution. The latest shifts of state accents towards innovative methods of education in Ukraine are considered, in particular, the innovative project "Presidential University" with a focus on a range of new and highly popular professions in the real sector of the economy. A detailed analysis of the benefits and risks of such a project and the entire scientific and educational field in general is provided. Emphasis is placed on the perception of the modern university as part of an industrial cluster that is threefold in its stakeholders: industrial enterprises, scientists and students. The need for comprehensive provision of such a trinity is indicated. The modern need for Ukraine's integration into the European educational space requires non-standard solutions, or the study of the most effective experience of the integrated education system in our country in the recent past. Effective recommendations for the implementation of integrated schemes of education-science-production, following the examples of the world's leading scientific institutions of the present and recent past (factories - universities). Modern examples of integrated educational and scientific institutions (DTEK Academy, Metinvest-Polytechnic University of Mariupol) are considered and analyzed, the need for a systematic and comprehensive approach is given given the priority of scientific and educational industries in the priorities of global industrial development. also, the use of existing capacity to solve specific problems in the region using smart specialization.

A study on the digital transformation strategy of a fashion brand

Developing a strategy for the digital transformation of an enterprise with allowance for the capabilities of business ecosystems.

The presented study analyzes the processes of creating ecosystems in the context of external challenges and increasing the level of competitive market environment and global digitalization of business to develop a strategy for the digital transformation of an enterprise.Aim. The study aims to assess the practicability of creating ecosystems when developing a strategy for the digital transformation of traditional (“defensive”) enterprises and to provide recommendations for their utilization.Tasks. The authors analyze the characteristics, features, and typology of business ecosystems; substantiate the need to analyze and use the capabilities of business ecosystems in the development of a strategy for corporate development in the digital environment; describe the essence, key aspects of development, and propose a modular structure for the strategy of the digital transformation of an enterprise; develop a conceptual framework for the strategic management of the digital transformation of an enterprise; formulate recommendations for selecting ecosystems that would enhance the enterprise’s competitiveness.Methods. This study uses general scientific methods of cognition in various aspects to propose approaches and a conceptual model of the corporate digital transformation strategy with allowance for the capabilities of business ecosystems.Results. The authors show that in the context of the developing digital economy, business ecosystems have become a new way to organize economic activity due to their high efficiency and rapid scaling. There are two major types of ecosystems: centralized (transaction) ecosystems in the form of digital platforms and adaptive (solution) ecosystems formed by the orchestrating company to create a new value proposition by joint efforts of partners from various industries through direct interaction with each other. The study identifies stages in the development of a digital transformation strategy based on enhancing the enterprise’s competitiveness through its participation in the ecosystem(s) and formulate recommendations for selecting ecosystems that would improve the efficiency of the enterprise.Conclusions. Ecosystem development is a business trend that determines the competitiveness of enterprises and improves the efficiency of their operation in the digital environment. Therefore, under modern conditions, an enterprise should develop its digital transformation strategy based on the creation and/or use of business ecosystems.

Counter-cyclical public venture capital: Debt-funding as an anti-austerity innovation strategy

This article outlines a counter-cyclical innovation strategy to achieve prosperity, derived from an innovative project, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). We identify an ‘innovation paradox’ in that the very point in the business cycle, when legislators are tempted to view austerity as a cure for economic downturns and to reduce innovation spend, is when an increase is most needed to create new industries and jobs and innovate out of recession or depression. It is both desirable and possible that policymakers resist the urge to capitulate to the innovation paradox. During periods that exhibit subdued inflation, elevated spare productive capacity, and low government borrowing rates, governments should increase their borrowings and use the proceeds to boost investment targeted towards innovation. We show how the State of California successfully utilized debt financing, traditionally reserved for physical infrastructure projects, to stimulate the development of intellectual infrastructure. Finally, we recommend a halt to European austerity policies and a ‘triple helix’ broadening of narrow ‘smart specialization’ policies that chase a private venture capital chimera. Europe should seize the present macroeconomic opportunity of low interest rates, borrow for innovation and be paid back manifold by ‘picking winners’, similarly to what the USA has been doing through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) with GPS, as a response to Sputnik, the Internet and artificial intelligence, or the driverless car, formerly known as the ‘autonomous land vehicle’ in its military guise. Proactively targeted macroscopic investments in innovation are needed to solve the productivity/employment puzzle and foster the transition to a knowledge-based society.

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY IN THE ECONOMY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: the case of a financial services provider, bin ali authoritarianism and international factors in tunisia (1987-2008).

Despite being shaken by the Arab Spring, authoritarian structures still exist in the regions of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Th is situation highlights the importance of studying the continuity of authoritarian structures more comprehensively. In addition to approaches that reduce authoritarianism to intra-state factors, literature has developed over the last decade emphasizing the importance of international factors. This literature in particular emphasizes the politics, economics, and diplomacy established by the West and that ties are effective in the continuity of authoritarianism in non-Western countries. This study attempts to explain Ben Ali’s period and the continuity of authoritarianism in Tunisia in the context of this developing new literature. Although Tunisia underwent a relatively positive transformation process after the Arab Spring, Ben Ali’s authoritarian rule was supported by the West as a model of an economic miracle and democratic stability; this administration managed to survive for 23 years. The study’s main argument can be expressed as follows: While the economic liberalization process imposed on Tunis by Western actors caused an increase in socio-economic inequalities, the instrumentalization of democracy by the West again served to suppress civil and political freedoms. Instead of focusing on the obstacles and opportunities in front of the transition to democracy in the post-Arab Spring period, examining theinternational factors influencing the continuity of authoritarianism in the Ben Ali period will shed light on how authoritarian structures still survive in MENA.

Corporate digital responsibility (CDR) in construction engineering—ethical guidelines for the application of digital transformation and artificial intelligence (AI) in user practice

AbstractDigitization is developing fast and has become a powerful tool for digital planning, construction and operations, for instance digital twins. Now is the right time for constructive approaches and to apply ethics-by-design in order to develop and implement a safe and efficient artificial intelligence (AI) application. So far, no study has addressed the key research question: Where can corporate digital responsibility (CDR) be allocated, and how shall an adequate ethical framework be designed to support digital innovations in order to make full use of the potentials of digitization and AI? Therefore, the research on how best practices meet their corporate responsibility in the digital transformation process and the requirements of the EU for trustworthy AI and its human-friendly use is essential. Its transformation bears a high potential for companies, is critical for success and thus, requires responsible handling. This study generates data by conducting case studies and interviewing experts as part of the qualitative method to win profound insights into applied practice. It provides an assessment of demands stated in the Sustainable Development Goals by the United Nations (SDGs), White Papers on AI by international institutions, European Commission and German Government requesting the consideration and protection of values and fundamental rights, the careful demarcation between machine (artificial) and human intelligence and the careful use of such technologies. The study discusses digitization and the impacts of AI in construction engineering from an ethical perspective. This research critically evaluates opportunities and risks concerning CDR in construction industry. To the author’s knowledge, no study has set out to investigate how CDR in construction could be conceptualized, especially in relation to digitization and AI, to mitigate digital transformation both in large, medium- and small-sized companies. This study applies a holistic, interdisciplinary, inclusive approach to provide guidelines for orientation and examine benefits as well as risks of AI. Furthermore, the goal is to define ethical principles which are key for success, resource-cost-time efficiency and sustainability using digital technologies and AI in construction engineering to enhance digital transformation. This study concludes that innovative corporate organizations starting new business models are more likely to succeed than those dominated by a more conservative, traditional attitude.

Optimization potential of the Digital Transformation program in EU top transportation company

Research background: We are living in complex and uncertain times and nowadays no one is doubting the DT expediency in order to support business transformation process or to boost agility for the new reality adoption and coping with the Crisis Purpose of the article: The aim of this study was to explore and assess Digital Transformation journey by one of Europe's largest transport companies – Girteka Logistics, in change environment and under uncertainty. The study collects data from the company’s Digital Transformation program, enabled by SAP solutions, insides from the Digital Transformation program internal and external teams. Methods: Within the study empirical research with descriptive research method was carried out using qualitative and quantitative observation methods. As the study is only about one company, the statistical population represents most of the Digital Transformation program team members. The data collection happened by the online questionary and afterward through the interviews with the key respondents to validate and extend gathered data. Second part of the data gathered is from Girteka’s Digital Transformation program documentation. The data collection happened by the documentation analysis and information consolidation. Findings & Value added: As the result of the study the antifragile generic hand-on Digital Transformation program roadmap was created and number of aspects were highlighted to be considered for the potential future research, like internal transformation team competency level requirements, expert labor marker and transformation partners situation as enabler for the companies’ digital transformation, process for the digital transformation program and overall business KPI definition to be used as transformation execution success indicator.

Digital transformation of legionella-safe cooling towers: an ecosystem design approach

Purpose Legionnaires’ disease is a major threat to public health. Solutions to deal with this problem are usually siloed and not entirely effective. This paper aims to model the information requirements of legionella-safe cooling towers in the era of Industry 4.0. Design/methodology/approach A year-long design science research was conducted in a cooling tower producer for heavy industries. The project started with a bibliometric analysis and literature review of legionella in cooling towers. Goal modeling techniques are then used to identify the requirements for digital transformation. Findings The improvement of legionella prevention, detection and outbreak response in digitally enabled cooling tower should involve different stakeholders. Digital twins and blockchain are disruptive technologies that can transform the cooling tower industry. Originality/value For theory, this study revises the most recent advances in legionella protection. Legionella-safe systems must be prepared to anticipate, monitor and immediate alert in case of an outbreak. For practice, this paper presents a distributed and digital architecture for cooling tower safety. However, technology is only a part of outbreak management solutions, requiring trustworthy conditions and real-time communication among stakeholders.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

Lego Change Management Case Study

Lego, the Danish company known for its colorful plastic bricks, has been a beloved toy brand for over eight decades.

 However, in the late 90s and early 2000s, Lego experienced a significant decline in sales and profitability due to poor decision-making and failure to adapt to the changing market. 

To address these challenges, Lego had to undergo a significant transformation in its business model, manufacturing process, and organizational structure. 

This transformation was achieved through a successful Change Management strategy that involved collaboration, communication, and innovation. 

In this blog post, we will explore Lego’s Change Management Case Study and discuss the lessons learned from this transformation.

Brief History and Growth of Lego   

Lego is a Danish company that was founded in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen. The name “Lego” is derived from the Danish words “leg godt,” which mean “play well.” The company originally produced wooden toys, but in 1949 it began producing plastic interlocking bricks.

The Lego brick was invented by Ole Kirk’s son, Godtfred Kirk Christiansen. The brick design was perfected over several years and was introduced in its modern form in 1958. The bricks were designed to be versatile and durable, and they quickly became popular among children and adults alike.

Over the years, Lego has continued to innovate and grow. In the 1960s, the company expanded its product line to include a wider variety of building sets and play themes, such as the famous Lego Space sets. In the 1970s and 1980s, Lego introduced its first licensed products, such as sets based on popular TV shows and movies.

In the 1990s, Lego experienced a period of financial difficulty, as the company had expanded too rapidly and faced increased competition from other toy manufacturers. In response, the company underwent a restructuring and refocused on its core products and values.

In the 2000s, Lego experienced a resurgence in popularity, as the company introduced new product lines, such as Lego Star Wars and Lego Harry Potter, which were based on popular movies and franchises. Lego also expanded its business into theme parks and other entertainment ventures.

Today, Lego is one of the world’s largest toy companies, with a wide range of products and a strong global presence. The company continues to innovate and evolve, as it seeks to provide children and adults with creative and engaging play experiences.

External factors that led to organizational changes at Lego 

Lego has undergone a number of organizational changes over the years, in response to various external factors. Some of the key external factors that have led to these changes include:

• Changes in the toy industry: The toy industry is constantly evolving, with new technologies and trends emerging all the time. In order to stay competitive, Lego has had to adapt its product offerings and business model to keep up with these changes.
• Economic conditions: Economic conditions can have a significant impact on consumer spending, and as a result, on toy sales. During periods of economic downturn, for example, consumers may be less likely to spend money on non-essential items like toys. In response, Lego may need to adjust its pricing or marketing strategies to maintain sales.
• Competition: Lego faces competition from a wide range of other toy manufacturers, some of whom may offer similar products at lower prices. In order to stay competitive, Lego may need to innovate and differentiate its products from those of its competitors.
• Changing demographics: Changes in demographics can also have an impact on toy sales. For example, as the population ages, there may be a shift away from toys and towards other types of products. In response, Lego may need to adjust its product offerings or marketing strategies to appeal to different age groups.
• Technological advancements: Advances in technology can have a significant impact on the toy industry. For example, the rise of video games and digital entertainment has led to a decline in traditional toy sales in some markets. In response, Lego has developed its own digital products and integrated technology into its traditional brick sets.
• Societal trends and attitudes: Societal trends and attitudes can also impact toy sales. For example, as concerns about the environment and sustainability have grown, there has been increased interest in eco-friendly products. In response, Lego has introduced a line of sustainable bricks made from plant-based materials.

Internal factors that led to organizational changes at Lego 

There were several internal factors that led to organizational change at Lego, including:

• Poor Financial Performance: Lego’s financial performance had declined significantly in the late 90s and early 2000s. This was due to several factors, including a lack of innovation, failure to adapt to changing consumer preferences, and over-expansion.
• Lack of Collaboration: Lego’s organizational structure was siloed, and there was a lack of collaboration between different departments. This led to inefficiencies, duplication of efforts, and a lack of innovation.
• Inefficient Manufacturing Process: Lego’s manufacturing process was outdated and inefficient, which led to longer lead times, higher costs, and lower quality products.
• Complexity of Product Lines: Lego’s product lines had become overly complex, which made it challenging to manage inventory, production, and sales effectively.
• Leadership Issues: Lego had experienced several leadership changes in a short period, which led to a lack of strategic direction and a disconnect between the company’s goals and its actions

05 biggest changes implemented by Lego

Here are the 5 biggest changes implemented by Lego:

• Simplified Product Lines: Lego streamlined its product lines by reducing the number of themes and sets it offered. This helped the company focus on its core offerings and improve its manufacturing process and inventory management.
• Agile Manufacturing Process: Lego introduced an agile manufacturing process that allowed for greater flexibility and responsiveness to changing market demands. This helped reduce lead times and costs, and improved the quality of its products.
• Collaborative Organizational Structure: Lego implemented a more collaborative organizational structure, which encouraged cross-functional teams to work together and share information. This led to greater innovation, more efficient decision-making, and better alignment with the company’s strategic goals.
• Customer-Centric Approach: Lego shifted its focus to a customer-centric approach, which involved listening to customer feedback and using it to inform product development and marketing decisions. This helped the company create products that better aligned with customer preferences, resulting in increased sales and profitability.
• Brand Expansion: Lego expanded its brand beyond traditional building sets to include video games, movies, and theme parks. This helped the company reach new audiences and diversify its revenue streams, making it less dependent on the success of its core products

05 Positive outcome and impact of change management implemented at Lego 

The successful implementation of changes by Lego led to several positive outcomes, including:

• Increased Revenue: Lego’s revenue grew significantly following the implementation of changes. In 2020, the company reported revenue of $6.5 billion, up from $1.4 billion in 2004.
• Improved Profitability: Lego’s profitability also improved, with the company reporting a net profit of $1.6 billion in 2020, up from a loss of $300 million in 2004.
• Increased Market Share: Lego’s market share in the toy industry grew from 4% in 2004 to 7.7% in 2020, making it one of the largest toy manufacturers in the world.
• Strong Brand Identity: Lego’s successful transformation helped establish it as a leading brand in the toy industry, known for its high-quality products, innovative designs, and commitment to sustainability.
• Diversified Product Line: Lego’s expansion beyond traditional building sets helped the company diversify its product line and revenue streams. This made it less dependent on the success of its core products, resulting in greater stability and sustainability for the company.

Final Words

The successful implementation of change management at Lego serves as a valuable case study for businesses looking to achieve sustainable growth and success in a rapidly changing market. Lego’s transformation was not easy, and it required a significant commitment to collaboration, communication, and innovation. However, the positive outcomes of the transformation demonstrate the importance of effective change management in achieving long-term success.

Lego’s successful transformation was achieved through a combination of strategic changes to its business model, organizational structure, and manufacturing process, as well as a focus on customer-centricity and brand expansion. By simplifying its product lines, implementing an agile manufacturing process, and creating a more collaborative organizational structure, Lego was able to improve its efficiency and responsiveness to market demands. This, in turn, led to increased revenue, improved profitability, and a stronger brand identity.

About The Author

Tahir Abbas

Related posts.

Storytelling in Design Thinking – Explained with Real-life Example

ITIL Change Management Roles and Responsibilities

The Essential Elements of Change Management Training Modules

Welcome to the MIT CISR website!

This site uses cookies. Review our Privacy Statement.

Resolving Workforce Skills Gaps with AI-Powered Insights

Ongoing digital transformation requires a workforce that is proficient in a wide variety of new skills. This briefing explores the use of AI in quantifying such proficiency, through a process known as skills inference. We introduce this concept by means of a case study of Johnson & Johnson, showing how skills inference can provide detailed insight into workforce skills gaps and thereby guide employees’ career development and leaders’ strategic workforce planning.

The April 2024 research briefing is read by author Nick van der Meulen.

DOWNLOAD THE TRANSCRIPT

Follow the research briefing podcast series on SoundCloud.

© 2024 MIT Center for Information Systems Research, van der Meulen, Tona, and Leidner. MIT CISR Research Briefings are published monthly to update the center’s member organizations on current research projects.

Related Publications

Research Briefing

Talking Points

Ai-powered skills inference.

Working Paper: Case Study

Developing a digital-first workforce: ai-driven skills enablement at johnson & johnson.

About the Researchers

Nick van der Meulen, Research Scientist, MIT Center for Information Systems Research (CISR)

Olgerta Tona, Lecturer, University of Gothenburg and Academic Research Fellow, MIT CISR

Dorothy E. Leidner, Professor, University of Virginia and Academic Research Fellow, MIT CISR

Mit center for information systems research (cisr).

Founded in 1974 and grounded in MIT's tradition of combining academic knowledge and practical purpose, MIT CISR helps executives meet the challenge of leading increasingly digital and data-driven organizations. We work directly with digital leaders, executives, and boards to develop our insights. Our consortium forms a global community that comprises more than seventy-five organizations.

MIT CISR Associate Members

MIT CISR wishes to thank all of our associate members for their support and contributions.

MIT CISR's Mission Expand

MIT CISR helps executives meet the challenge of leading increasingly digital and data-driven organizations. We provide insights on how organizations effectively realize value from approaches such as digital business transformation, data monetization, business ecosystems, and the digital workplace. Founded in 1974 and grounded in MIT’s tradition of combining academic knowledge and practical purpose, we work directly with digital leaders, executives, and boards to develop our insights. Our consortium forms a global community that comprises more than seventy-five organizations.