Innovation: Destructive Technologies

Introduction

One of the steady patterns in regard to business lies in regard to the catastrophe of the leading firms to sustain the competitive position when technology and operations experience changes. Most established firms normally capitalize profoundly and efficiently when it comes to technology that is needed to retain the already acquire client but experience failure in investing mainly on the demands of the consumers (Christensen, 1997). This normally leads to changes in the market as the expectations of the target populace consistently change based on technological advancement. Consumers normally possess extreme authority as they determine the investments that a company is to mainly depend on. However, if a company adopts a technology that has no adequate power to address their needs then it is disallowed an aspect that had forced most companies to work beyond the present to fulfill the increasing needs of coming generations. Disruptive technologies in this context are useful in determining the growth of the industry. This is considered as a threat as it asserts mainly on creating a market that is ruled by performance thus assaulting the achievements of the market. These characteristics have established numerous innovations that have thus led to the shift from the analog to a digital industry.

Analysis

The innovator's dilemma is a theory in regard to how large corporations that are well established in the market can be unsuccessful despite adhering to all the operations expectations.  In that according to Christensen for most companies, their successes and competencies can later become challenges in the context of changing markets and innovations (Christensen, 1997). In this context, the dilemma of innovators lies in establishing the ability to sustainable technologies. Technology sustainment refers to the capability to consistently develop products while meeting the growing needs of the consumers. These are innovations that are well understood by large corporations and have a well-established part to play in the economy. On the other hand, these corporations mainly experience challenges when handling destructive technologies. These are the kind of innovations that lead to undesirable product development and they are highly preferred since they are cheap and suitable for utilization. Despite the fact that these type of innovations occur in rare cases when they occur they result in extreme failure particularly for the corporations that have already become successful in the market.

In other words, the innovation dilemma usually arises, since in the quest of competing with the disruptive competitors a firm is needed to modify its business. Despite the fact that disruptive technology offers businesses with increased ability to overcome competition and retain its strategic and competitive positioning in the market it is not a long run strategy for success. In the market where demands and preferences are changing rather quickly, disruptive innovation is developed through the use of different processes opposing to those that the competitors are utilizing. Frequently, these technologies are weak and they are characterized by lesser quality. This, therefore, implies that a firm that engages in disruptive technology is mainly forced to abandon its values such as quality in order to increase sales through the use of affordability as its leading approach (Christensen, 1997). This only works for the short run and for the companies that have already been established in the market well they are subjected to failure due to the inability to sustain their the competencies and values while chasing huge profits and competitive positioning.

In other words, disruptive innovation can best be described as the technology set whose implementation leads to affect the functioning of the market. The main example of this technology is the internet which has widely been adopted in the contemporary society and has thus altered the functioning of companies and this has affected the companies negatively that are dependent on it. Disruptive innovation and technology are different as disruptive innovation is more focused on the use of the most productive and cheaper technology rather than concentrating on developing technology on its own to acquire the same benefits for the long run. Most companies have failed in this quest by chasing such a model that affects its abilities to be sustainable and to guard its competencies and values within a given market in general (Christensen, 1997).

Argument

The most successful firms today, have emerged to be successful since they are moved in the quest of serving the general needs of the consumers while ignoring the needs that are not within their targets. However, since consumers are in need of results, companies will mainly engage in technology development so that such needs can be resolved. When successful, companies become stranded in regard to all that they are supposed to do in order to sustain their achievements and retain the already acquired consumers in the market generally. In this process, most of them are disrupted and end up in some unfulfilling ventures that are associated with increased profitability but cannot last for the long run. The disruptive technology notion was mainly developed by Christensen in order to offer descriptions of the innovations that formulate fresh markets by targeting a fresh set of consumers. This is acquired partially, by connecting new forms of technology as well as developing fresh business innovations while still exploiting the existing ones. 

According to the disruptive technology concept most big firms normally fail due to the incapability to retain technology development. In that most companies become successful and begin to focus on chasing more profits while targeting new consumers set. It is in this quest that innovation is abandoned while chasing disruption. This is because most of the larger companies are in need of sustaining their positioning by fighting the existing competition. In this context, this implies that the companies are forced to act differently from the competitors for their success which leads to the use of cheaper and convenient technologies that seeks to innovate products that are characterized by lesser quality. If these products fail to fulfill the needs of the consumers this means that the technology is rejected in the market and with low sales the company will automatically fail. The failure of most large corporations can best be explained using the innovator’s dilemma in that due to the increasing needs and competition in the market companies fail to understand how to sustain their positioning.

Kodak was the most successful firm in the film industry but it failed due to its inability to transition when new technologies emerged as it chooses to retain its strategies. The new technologies created cheaper options which catalyzed its failure (Christensen, 1997). In that, there is the need to adapt to consistent changes in the quest of meeting the needs of consumers within a given market fully. The conduct was right as it strived to sustain its competitive positioning by not only upholding its strengths but also values regarding consumer’s satisfaction. However, the company failed to realize that technology was gradually changing and it was also required to change in order to meet the changing preferences while offering solutions to its consumers. IBM is one of the companies that might fail in the next ten years if it continues to conduct business in the same way. IBM is bound to fail based on its incapability to transition and adopt technology as it is rising. In that unlike most of the other companies that are within the sector the company produces products that are less innovative and takes more time to manufacture. IBM will ultimately lose its positioning in the market as it is not able to compete innovatively with other companies. IBM will ultimately fail based on its inability to invest on social capital and innovation which are the primary determinant of the success of any business in the contemporary society. In that, for business to be fully effective especially in the technology innovation industry companies are required to consistently adhere to technological growth and advancement in general (Christensen, 1997). The company is likely to fail as it has been outweighed by various companies such as Apple which is focused on adopting technology as it emerges in order to fully meet the needs of the consumers.

Recommendations

A disruptive technology can be beneficial if utilized strategically but has the potential of leading to the downfall of large corporations which have already experienced success. In this context, companies are recommended to focus on their capability to transition with the rise of new technologies in the market. In other words, this means that companies should seek to exploit the existing innovation while developing further to offer increased benefits to the ones that are not present and have the ability to offer more solutions to the companies. In this regard, cost, effectiveness, and convenience should be considered always. Thus, rather than chasing profitability quality is essential.

Conclusion

The innovator’s dilemma is real in the economic market today. This is usually a challenging option that is faced by the large companies when it comes to making choices in regard to retaining an already present market by ensuring that it conducts business the same way or focusing on investing in fresh markets by adopting fresh models. Most companies normally fail not because they lack the capability to remain relevant in the market but mainly because they are not able to transition in the presence of emerging technology changes. Companies are required to adapt to market changes as they arise while upholding technology as a primary means of achieving greater.

 

 

Reference

(N.D). Disruptive Technologies. Pdf

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Review Press.