During strategy lectures you’ll often hear the term “first mover advantage”, which refers to a company being the first one to enter a market and carving out a dominant position for itself. This does exist, although examples are more rare than you think. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that Yahoo and AltaVista were the number one search engines before Google showed up with a better algorithm and consigned them both to the rubbish bin.<\/p>\n
While there can be advantages of going first, there are also drawbacks. The reason almost every modern underground system is better than London’s is because London went first and built tunnels that were too small and stations that were too curved. They had no idea in the 1860s that this thing they were building would become the main method of shuttling millions of people around major cities; had they done so they may have planned it better. By the time Moscow (1930s), Paris (1900s), Tokyo (1920s), and New York (1900s) came to build theirs, valuable lessons had already been learned. Alas, it was too late for London whose underground is still hobbled by design decisions made with no experience to draw on. No doubt there are other examples of pioneers helpfully making mistakes their rivals won’t have to, and readers are welcome to share them in the comments given I’m too lazy to think of them right now.<\/p>\n
Anyway, a tweet by Lord Ashcroft reminds me of the benefits those who come later can draw from those who went first:<\/p>\n
\nOther EU countries if they want to exit the EU should be encouraged by the U.K. shenanigans. The lesson learned is you first plan for no deal then invoke article 50 telling the EU you\u2019re leaving but willing to discuss anything mutually advantageous…you\u2019ll get the right deal…<\/p>\n
\u2014 Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) March 15, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n