Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byNicholas Allison Modified over 7 years ago
2
Innovation B290
3
Cement industry Tushman, M. and P. Anderson, 1986, Administrative Science Quarterly
4
Computers Tushman, M. and P. Anderson, 1986, Administrative Science Quarterly
5
Passenger Aircraft Tushman, M. and P. Anderson, 1986, Administrative Science Quarterly
6
The Technology Cycle Source: Anderson, P. and M. L. Tushman, 1990, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(4)
7
Technological change Discontinuity Technology breakthroughs
Competence enhancing Transistors (for computer companies) Float glass Competence destroying Transistors (for valve companies) Plastic Flash memory Xerography
8
Types of Innovation Incremental vs. Radical Competence enhancing vs. competence destroying Component vs. architectural Sustaining vs. Disruptive
9
Incremental vs. Radical
Small changes that improve the performance of a product (or service) Radical Dramatic change in performance, an inflection point or discontinuity
10
Component vs. Architectural
Does not alter the basic product architecture Thermal Conduction Module in 3083 Multi-core microprocessors (Pentium Core 2) Architectural Takes existing components and combines them in novel ways IBM PC, Apple’s iPhone
11
Competence enhancing/destroying
Innovations that build on a company’s current knowledge and resource base Hybrid disk drives for Seagate Competence destroying Innovations that require completely new skills and resources Digital image capture for Kodak (essentially a chemical company)
12
Sustaining vs. Disruptive
Whether an innovation is sustaining or disruptive: May have little to do with technology More often, a function of the interaction of changing markets and organizational imperatives
13
Netflix Moved from physical distribution to the internet
Early mover in an ‘era of ferment’ Disruptive Challenges the cable companies market dominance Changes the entertainment delivery business model Competence destroying Video streaming replaces distribution logistics
14
Technological Discontinuity
Technology S curves Technological knowledge Technological Discontinuity Time
15
Three different technologies
Thin film heads Metal in Gap heads Areal Density More recently: Magnetoresistive Giant Magnetoresistive Tunneling Magnetoresistive Ferrite heads 1950 1970 1990 1995
16
IBM’s development trajectory
IBM’s R&D scientists reported to management that different technologies (e.g., “Ferrite head”) had performance limits determined by the laws of physics As each technology ran out of steam the company had to be positioned to implement its successor
17
Fujitsu and IBM (continued)
As IBM approached the predicted technological limit funding for the next promising technology (e.g., thin-film) was increased funding for further research into the existing technology (e.g., ferrite heads) was reduced Thin film head improved increasingly rapidly while progress in ferrite heads slowed…
18
…Fujitsu pushes on with Ferrite
Thin film heads Metal in Gap heads Areal Density Ferrite heads More recently: Magnetoresistive Giant Magnetoresistive Tunneling Magnetoresistive Ferrite heads 1950 1970 1990 1995
19
Technology S-curves May be a function of a particular technology Or may simply be a self-fulfilling prophesy
20
Disruptive Innovation
Why do incumbent firms often fail? Companies listen to their most lucrative customers Emerging markets are too small (and risky) to pursue Forecasts of emerging markets are generally wrong A firm’s existing capabilities shape its approach Progress may allow technology to ‘leap’ from one market to another
21
The Hard Disk Drive Industry
“Of the seventeen firms in the industry in all except IBM's disk drive operation had failed or had been acquired by 1995” (…and IBM sold it’s operation to Hitachi in 2003) “all of the producers remaining by 1996 had entered the industry after 1976” (Clayton Christiansen, HBS) Despite established firms' technological prowess, the firms that led in developing new, disruptive technologies were new entrants, not incumbents.
22
Supply exceeds demand “Old” technology Performance / price
Segment demand “Disruptive” technology Time
23
The Value Network New products are needed for new markets
Different set of CSFs Smaller form factor disks Incumbents consider the technology for this market inferior to that needed for their major customers/markets New entrants fill the gap Technology price/performance improves faster than the small (new) market needs Enough to surpass incumbent’s technology New entrants supplant incumbents
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.