Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lecture IMTelkom MM-Biztel: Architectural  Innovation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Lecture IMTelkom MM-Biztel: Architectural Innovation


Published on

Lecture IMTelkom MM-Biztel on Architectural Innovation

Lecture IMTelkom MM-Biztel on Architectural Innovation

Published in: Education, Technology, Business

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Invention Or Innovation 1m38 Architectural Innovation Lecture by: 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 1
  • 2. Roadmap of Innovation Lecture by: 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 2
  • 3. Describing the innovation • Incremental & radical Innovation • Component & Type Architectural • dominant design Two main • routines concepts 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 3
  • 4. Types of Innovation - 1 •Sustaining / Incremental Innovation: generally small innovations in products and processes aimed at existing customers. •Disruptive / Radical Innovation: significant innovations generally aimed at unknown or non-existent customers. 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 4
  • 5. Types of Innovation - 2 Component Innovation: Making existing components better. Architectural Innovation: putting existing components together in new ways. 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 5
  • 6. Architecture = Organization •Structure in mature organizations tends to evolve to match product architectures. • Architectural Innovation, therefore, many times includes elements of organizational change. 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 6
  • 7. Characterising innovations Incremental • minor changes on existing product • exploits the potentials of existing design innovations • often reinforces the dominance of established firms • based on a different set of engineering and scientific Radical principles • often opens up new markets and potential applications innovation • create great difficulties to existing firms and leave space for entry of new firms. Architectural • changes the way in which components are linked together while living the basic competencies innovation untouched Component • improvement of a component innovation 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 7
  • 8. Characterising innovations Impacts on the linkages between components Impacts on the linkages between components Impacts on the linkages between components Core concepts Linkage between core Reinforced Overturned Unchanged Incremental Modular concepts and components innovation innovation changed Architectural Radical innovation innovation Innovations’ impact on components 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 8
  • 9. Characterising innovations Incremental innovation: Modular innovation: refines and extends the improvement of a established design component. Ex : from Architectural innovation: Radical innovation: reconfiguration of an establishes new established system dominant design, a new set of core design concept embodied in a new architecture 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 9
  • 10. Characterising innovations : Example of Room air fans Established technology: large electrically powered fans, monted in the ceiling, with the motor hidden. Incremental innovation: insulate Modular innovation: to dampen noise, blade design improvement of a component. etc. Architectural innovation: Radical innovation: move to introduction of portable fans. The central air conditioning components are the same, motor, blade, control system and the architecture is different 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 10
  • 11. Dominant Design Conceptual model of technological change Technological discontinuity • Emergence of new technology: period of confusion Based on • Little agreement about the product, the subsystem seminal • Great deal of experimentation works by • Different technological trajectories opened -Ex: David, Dosi, different technologies for the wheels of cars, production of electricity power Sahal • Different technological trajectories in competition – Battle of standards. Competition of designs. 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 11
  • 12. Routines 1 2 3 • Established • Co-existence • Organisation organisations of old and new and linkages require time to competencies, between identify an learning functions R&D, innovation as modes, and production radical skills etc. can be questioned 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 12
  • 13. Innovation Implications Lecture by: 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 13
  • 14. Managerial implications • Anticipation Crossing the chasm • Specific marketing mix to address targets • Possible entries when core concepts & linkages are changed Distinction incumbents / • Accumulated competences when core concepts and linkages new entrants reinforced Configurations of alliances • Alliances to acquire knowledge and to stimulate innovations at different stages of the • Alliances to outsource product life cycle • Alliances to market the technologies • efficient way to organise and breaking routines can be Routines necessary 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 14
  • 15. The Technology S-Curve We all know that new technologies emerge slowly, grow quickly (if they catch on) and then fade away. This common knowledge has been described as the technology S-curve. Why does it exist? TIME 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 15
  • 16. The Adoption Curve Luddites Geoffrey Moore has attributed the S-curve to the technology adoption life cycle where techies and visionaries are early adopters, pragmatists make up the bulk of users, and luddites fill out the tail Pragmatists of the distribution. Visionaries TIME 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 16
  • 17. The Chasm Moore has also described the “chasm” in the adoption life cycle. He proposes that many new technologies do not make it across the chasm between visionaries and pragmatists. They fall into the chasm. The technology S-curve with the chasm might look like: TIME 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 17
  • 18. Technology Cycle Cycle Technology Technological Selection Disruption Era of Ferment Dominant Disruption #2 Design (destroys existing competence) TIME 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 18
  • 19. Innovation & Technology Cycle Disruptive Innovation Component, Architectural, Product Innovation Sustaining and Design Competition Process Community-driven Innovation technology change What do we make? How do we make it (better)? TIME 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 19
  • 20. Other Differences Research Operational Systems Prototypes Product Families Custom developments Predictability Network building Partnerships Uncertainty Standards Network Effects Value = f(N2) (non-compliance cost increases with time) TIME 23/01/2010 IMT-MMBiztel 20
  • 21. Lessons for Technology Managers • First mover advantage may not be so critical – sustaining technologies the first mover does not necessarily have advantage Due to: • Customer linkages of incumbents • Deep pockets in incumbents – disruptive technologies - first mover advantage critical. Due to • steepness of learning curve in these technologies • Persistent “rational” behavior of incumbents • Market forecasting is impossible – assume that the initial market will not be the eventual one • e.g Kittyhawk micro hard drive (eventual market cameras, MP3s) • Honda motorcycles (dirt bikes rather than “tourers”) – product offering must be flexible to allow to meet changing market 21
  • 22. Changing dimension of competition over product lifecycle • Windermere Associates Model states that customer needs move down dimensions below as each need is satisfied: – Technical performance – Reliability – Convenience, and then lastly – Price • Any one of these steps could signal move to new “value network” and represent a disruptive technology 22
  • 23. Technical dimension A Time Convenience dimension Time Technical dimension B Price dimension Time Time Reliability dimension Time over product life-cycle Impact of changing competition 23
  • 24. Examples • Portable/notebook computer – preoccupation with sustaining technologies by IBM, Compaq, Dell to make faster desktops – Make “rational” decisions to invest in new technologies to be able to get better margins by selling “top-of-the-range” – New entrants (e.g. Zenith, Toshiba) produce portables that are less powerful, poorer monitor, less storage space, but are lighter! – Mainstream manufacturers only wake up later • PDAs – preoccupation with sustaining technologies by IBM, Compaq, Dell to make faster notebooks – Make “rational” decisions to invest in new technologies to be able to get better margins by selling “top-of-the-range” – New entrants (e.g. 3Com) produce portable diaries that are less powerful, poorer monitor, less storage space, but fit in a pocket! – Mainstream manufacturers only wake up later 24
  • 25. More Examples • “OEM” Software -> Shrink Wrap Software • Mainframe -> IBM PC • Cessna -> Micro light Aircraft • Email -> SMS • Professional Printing -> DTP & Inkjet • Pathologists -> Home pregnancy testing • MSOffice -> MSWorks 25
  • 26. Trajectories you know “random access file” – ca. 1953 26
  • 27. Trajectories you know “random access file” – ca. 1973 27
  • 28. Trajectories you know 180MB, 3.5” – ca. 1993 28
  • 29. Trajectories you know 120GB, 3.5” – ca. 2002 29
  • 30. Trajectories you know 20GB, 1.75” – ca. 2002 Back to Orbit Innovation 6m06 30