Regardless of all the details, most of the theories shared the common thought that dinosaurs were a group of animals that had reached the end of their evolutionary life. Their extinction was seen as inevitable, the product of having evolved for too long. In most extinction scenarios, the dinosaurs were simply unable to cope with competition from mammals and the changing climate, and so they all went extinct.

Why talk about dinosaurs which lived 65 million years ago or for that sake make a reference to the industrial revolution happening from 1760 to 1820-1860,  which started in UK spreading to Western Europe and North America within decades? Why even bother looking at the past when we only can change the future? Because when a company or 'a common way of doing business' have controlled the society for too long time, they end like the dinosaurs i.e. unable to cope with the competition and the changing landscape with the ultimate destiny of extinct. Why that - what made them strong also made them weak, the greater and stronger you are, the longer time it takes to adapt to changes and when you are too great, you have passed the 'point of no-return' and change is not possible.

Change is the basic law of nature. But the changes wrought by the passage of time affects individuals and institutions in different ways. According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Applying this theoretical concept to us as individuals, business or society, we can state that the one that is  able to survive is the one that is able to adapt to the changing physical, social, political, moral, and spiritual environment in which it finds itself. 

The industrial revolution is a process that dramatically changed the world. In essence the industrial revolution or evolution is a sign of maturity for a country which is going from single person production to machine mass production, development of machine tools and the rise of factory systems. But the major impact is the rise of standard living for the general population, by that increase in domestic demand and a growing middle class. These major changes required changes in all infrastructures such as roads, ports and communication systems. Urbanization kicked off as population moved from countryside to the cities, which is where the jobs were and retailers saw its golden days controlling what merchandises you could buy - it was truly the golden ages for owners of business, whether producer, wholesaler, merchant, grocer or retailer.

In essence the business world have been very alike after the industrial revolution and not much have changed - until now. The business world is changing rapidly and the 'old way of doing business' is in many cases obsolete - we are in the mist of a new revolution, the technological revolution and many large corporations are struggling as they cannot adapt to the changes fast enough and they have long term commitments, fixed assets and infrastructures geared with the ambition to control the market with the same business model over centuries - but realizing the world is changing rapidly within a few years - and the very same assets that enabled the companies to concur the world are now dragging them down like a 'ball and chain'.

There is a huge risk/cost being the largest operator, not a cost you can see in the P&L statement, but an inherent bomb under the very fundamental reason of having a profitable business on the long terms. That bomb I would call inflexibility, stiffness and cultural complacency, arrogance and ignorance.

When cost of change is much greater than the immediate reward many companies choose not to change, but stick to what they have and observe what happens. But many times the reward is calculated based on historical data and with current knowledge, so why even consider changing? A very good example is Kodak, they were determined that digital photo and images belonged to teens and would never be adopted as a technology by professional business and photographers. In 2012 they filed for bankruptcy - former $10 billion company with 120,000 employees - and in the same year FaceBook bought Instagram for $1 billion, a company with 13 employees and no profits. I think everybody can agree, that FaceBook did a fantastic deal and were very forward thinking. 

The challenge is obviously that the larger the asset base and operational ties in permanent infrastructures the longer time it takes to make a major change and the higher is the risk of failure - evidently in many cases, many companies have passed the point of no-return and cannot change, just like Kodak. But could they have changed, if the willingness were there? It takes some kind of guts by the board and management team to scrap billions of dollars of asset value, centuries spend on patents and technology in R&D as well as turning down thousands of loyal employees to jump the boat and make their bets on a mobile app without many assets - but they could have changed and adapting to the world over time and maybe they would have been the company that bought Instagram and not FaceBook. Kodak could have nurtured own competition, they could have internal start-ups that would challenge their present business model and see where it brought them 'Never be afraid of your own competition, your competitor would take it any given day'

These are the reasons the dinosaurs died and these are the reasons many companies ultimately will die, the costs of change is so great that the only inevitably destiny is extinct - unless you are ready to adapt and change.

A few supporting stats for your reference:

- By Q4 2007 Nokia had 50.8% market share of mobile phones, by 2012 it had declined to 2.9%

- Comparing Fortune 500 1955 with 2014 only 61 companies appear in both lists. In other words, only 12.2% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 were still on the list 59 years later in 2014, and almost 88% of the companies from 1955 have disappeared.

- Fifty years ago, the life expectancy of a firm in the Fortune 500 was around 75 years. Today, it’s less than 15 years and declining all the time.

So who are todays dinosaurs or who are the mammals in todays world that will the winners of tomorrows business? Underneath is my projection of the Winners of tomorrow and I see no reason to mention the 'Dino's'.

Retailers & eCommerce companies that appreciate meeting and serving customers in all channels. Automotive companies that appreciate hybrid and electrical vehicles are the future. Tech disruptive companies that acknowledge they need to generate positive bottom line and not only burn cash from various VC fundings. Food companies that appreciate the public want to eat proper food and not artificial processed 'food' pumped with all kind of bad ingredients. Energy companies that acknowledge we need sustainable energy sources as an long term alternative to fossil fuel. Banking companies that acknowledge that people are tired of always paying the bill for their risky advises, failures and high overhead costs without ever risk own money. Consumer Packed Companies that acknowledge that consumers are willing to pay for good products but not for expensive marketing and bad product - product is king. Online Groceries that understand that a sustainable model is not offering a personal shopper, as the general public cannot afford such service. Tech Companies that understand that you need more than just a great app and smart marketing. Medical companies that acknowledge that customers must be won in the marketplace.  

Customer Centric Companies that focus on making great products or services for the value customers are willing to spend.

Companies that nurture innovation, failure and (internal) competition - the world is not static but a sum of trillions of variables every single second.

Companies that understand that Millennia's have never experienced a world that is not online and social media is as integrated part of their daily life as breathing air.

This is great HBR article reg. strategy and execution - What you need is a great Strategy with Great execution - it goes hand in hand.