Ever wondered why successful companies sometimes fail in the face of new, disruptive technologies? How can industry giants like IBM miss colossal shifts in their market? What does the rapid evolution of the disk drive industry teach us about handling technological change? Dive into a world where sustaining technologies and disruptive technologies clash, and find out how your business can navigate this intricate landscape.

The Innovator's Dilemma

Have you ever wondered why successful companies can fail when they confront certain types of market and technological change. It's intriguing because it's not about the failure of just any company, but of good ones - those known for innovation and execution. 

Take Sears Roebuck, for decades it was admired as a retail giant. It pioneered supply chain management, store brands, catalogue retailing, and credit card sales. But Sears missed the advent of discount retailing and home centers and lost its edge.

Or consider the computer industry. IBM dominated the mainframe market but missed the emergence of minicomputers. Likewise, Digital Equipment Corporation created the minicomputer market but missed the desktop personal computer market.

So, why do these well-managed companies fail? Three findings emerge: 

1. There's a crucial distinction between sustaining technologies (those that improve product performance in established markets) and disruptive technologies (innovations that result in worse product performance initially but may have other appealing features).
2. The pace of technological progress can surpass what markets need.
3. Customers and financial structures of successful companies heavily influence the types of investments that appear attractive to them.

By understanding these dynamics, managers can align their organizations with disruptive technologies instead of ignoring or fighting them. For example, creating an independent organization with a cost structure suited to tackle low-margin opportunities offered by disruptive technologies can be a viable strategy. 

Similarly, traditional planning and marketing techniques often fail when dealing with disruptive technologies. Instead, discovery-based planning, which assumes that forecasts are wrong and the chosen strategy may be wrong, can be more effective.

It is also important to acknowledge that an organization's capabilities can also be its disabilities. Processes and values that work well in one context may fail in another. Managers need to understand where an organization's capabilities and disabilities reside and how to create new capabilities.

Finally, the supply of technology may not match market demand. When product performance overshoots market demands, the basis of competition changes. Companies need to carefully measure trends in customer usage to catch the points at which competition will change.

All these principles can help managers spot disruptive threats and opportunities. They can also guide managers on how to respond to these disruptions effectively. 

Why Do Successful Companies Fail in the Face of Technological Change?

The history of the disk drive industry is a fascinating case study in the relationship between technological innovation and business success. It presents an interesting paradox: the best firms often fail not in spite of, but because of, their customer-focused approach. 

The key to success in this industry boils down to one thing: adaptability. The best firms succeeded because they listened to their customers and invested aggressively in technologies that satisfied their customers' needs. However, this same strategy was also their downfall. This is the innovator's dilemma: staying too close to your customers can sometimes lead to failure. 

How so? Here's a story. 

In 1981, Seagate Technology, a leading disk drive manufacturer, developed a 3.5-inch drive prototype. The engineers were excited about it, but the marketing team was hesitant. Their existing customers, desktop computer manufacturers, didn't need a smaller drive. They were looking for higher capacity at a lower cost per megabyte. So, Seagate's executives canceled the program, reasoning that the markets for 5.25-inch products were larger and more profitable. They were right, for the time being.

A few years later, a new market for portable computers emerged. Conner Peripherals, a new entrant, seized the opportunity and started shipping 3.5-inch drives in 1987. By the end of 1990, Conner claimed 95% of the 3.5-inch drive market, and Seagate was left playing catch-up.

So, what's the lesson here? Sometimes, staying too close to your current customers can blind companies to new opportunities. Disruptive technologies often appeal to emerging markets with different needs, and established firms, held captive by their existing customers, may fail to see these opportunities until it's too late. Isn't it ironic that customer focus, one of the most preached business principles, can sometimes lead to failure?

This isn't to say that customer focus is bad. In fact, it's crucial for sustaining innovations—improvements that give existing customers more of what they want. The disk drive industry is full of examples of established firms leading the development of such innovations. But when it comes to disruptive innovations—those that redefine performance and create new markets—entrants seem to have the upper hand.

Seagate's Dilemma: How Customer Focus Can Sometimes Lead to Failure in the Tech Industry

Innovation is often thought to be a straightforward path. However, it's a complex process influenced by numerous factors, including the value network - the context in which a firm operates. This network involves the firm's competitive strategy, its customers' needs, its competitors, and the economic value of a new technology. 

But why do some companies falter when confronted with technological change? One explanation points to organizational impediments. For instance, companies' structures usually foster component-level innovations, but when a fundamental architectural change is required, these structures can hinder innovation. 

Another explanation centers on a firm's ability to deal with radically new technology. Established firms excel at improving existing skills but often struggle to exploit new technologies. 

However, a third theory suggests that failure can stem from the concept of a value network. For example, in the disk drive industry, leading firms often introduced sustaining technologies, but struggled with disruptive changes. If their customers wanted an innovation, they managed to develop and adopt it. But if their customers didn't need an innovation, these firms found it impossible to commercialize even technologically simple innovations.

This pattern of resource allocation accounts for established firms’ consistent leadership in sustaining innovations and their dismal performance in disruptive ones. Therefore, the value network theory is potent in explaining technology-related successes and failures.

But how does a company navigate this complex landscape? A six-step decision-making pattern emerged from several interviews with managers in the disk drive industry. This pattern involves developing disruptive technologies, seeking customer reactions, ramping up the pace of sustaining technological development, forming new companies, moving upmarket, and finally, belatedly jumping on the bandwagon to defend their customer base.

To successfully navigate technological change and innovation, companies must consider their value network, the needs of their customers, and the potential for disruptive technologies. It's not just about having the right technology; it's about understanding the market and knowing when and how to innovate.

Can Your Company's Value Network Make or Break its Innovation Success?

The mechanical excavator industry, much like the disk drive industry, has experienced a series of disruptive technologies throughout its history. One such disruptive technology, hydraulics, nearly wiped out the entire population of mechanical shovel manufacturers. 

Despite the initial resistance to this new technology, the triumph of hydraulic excavators took twenty years, proving to be just as decisive and difficult to counter as those in the disk drive industry.

The evolution of excavators dates back to the steam shovel invented by William Smith Otis in 1837. The industry then faced a major technological upheaval in the early 1920s, as gasoline-powered engines replaced steam power. This transition, though radical, was a sustaining innovation that enabled contractors to move earth faster, more reliably, and at a lower cost.

The industry again evolved with the introduction of diesel engines and electric motors. However, the most disruptive change came with the introduction of hydraulically actuated systems, replacing cable-actuated systems. This change led to the failure of many established manufacturers, with only a few successfully transforming into sustainable hydraulic excavator manufacturers.

So, why did this happen? The metrics of performance changed. The initial hydraulic excavators were limited in capacity and reach and were not useful to the mainstream contractors. However, the technology improved at a much faster rate than the market’s needs, eventually allowing it to invade the mainstream markets.

This process illustrates a dilemma often faced by established firms when disruptive technologies emerge. It's easier for them to invest in sustaining innovations that improve their existing products and appeal to their existing customers. However, disruptive innovations require a shift in focus towards new markets, which might not initially be profitable or large enough to be interesting. This dilemma is also present in the disk drive and steel industries. The challenge lies in recognizing the potential of the disruptive technology before it's too late. 

Disruptive Technologies: The Tipping Point in the Excavator Industry and Beyond

Why do strong companies fail in the face of disruptive technological change? It's not because they lack competence or ignore innovations. In fact, they excel at developing and implementing new technology that their customers need. 

The issue arises when they're confronted with disruptive technology that their current customers don't want. This is the paradox: good management practices, which focus on listening to customers and investing in profitable, high-quality products, can lead to failure in the face of disruptive change. 

The key lies in understanding organizational nature. Successful companies must recognize five principles: 
1. Customers control resource allocation.
2. Small markets can't solve the growth needs of large companies.
3. The ultimate uses of disruptive technologies are unknowable in advance.
4. Organizations have capabilities independent of the people who work within them.
5. Technology supply may not equal market demand. 

The challenge for managers is to harness these principles to their advantage. Companies that have succeeded in disruptive technological change, such as Quantum and Control Data in the disk drive industry, have done so by creating independent organizations focused on the disruptive technology. 

The computer, retail, and printer industries provide further examples of the impact of disruptive technologies. In each case, successful companies created separate organizations to develop and commercialize the disruptive technology. 

So, what should companies do when faced with disruptive technology that their customers don't want? Trying to convince everyone to pursue it despite customer rejection and lower profitability is a fight against the powerful forces of organizational nature. Instead, creating an independent organization to develop the technology among emerging customers increases the probability of success. 

Can Your Company Survive Disruptive Technological Change?

In navigating disruptive technological change, managers must take on the mantle of leaders, not followers. They must spearhead the development and commercialization of these disruptive technologies in organizations that match the size of the market they aim to serve. This is because leadership is crucial in dealing with disruptive technologies and small emerging markets can't meet the near-term growth needs of large companies. 

Consider the disk drive industry. Evidence shows that creating new markets is less risky and more rewarding than entering established markets against entrenched competition. However, as companies grow larger, it becomes increasingly difficult to penetrate emerging markets early enough. Since growing companies need to continuously add new revenue to maintain their growth rate, small markets often fall short in providing the necessary revenue. 

So, how can managers tackle this? 

One approach is to try to accelerate the growth rate of the emerging market so it becomes big enough, fast enough, to impact the growth of a large company. Another approach is to wait until the market has become well-defined and large enough to be of interest. However, both these approaches have their own set of challenges. 

The third and more promising approach is to assign projects aimed at commercializing disruptive technologies to smaller organizations. These organizations are small enough to be excited about small-market opportunities and can do so regularly even while the mainstream company is growing. 

Consider Apple's attempt to push the growth rate of the emerging market with its Newton. Despite Apple's aggressive approach, the Newton only made a small dent in Apple's need for new growth. The company invested heavily in the Newton; however, it failed to make a significant impact on Apple’s revenue growth, thus being perceived as a failure. 

On the other hand, consider Allen Bradley's approach of acquiring small companies to incubate disruptive technologies. By keeping the electronics products as a separate business from its mainstream electromechanical products operation, Allen Bradley was able to successfully transition from mechanical to electronic motor controls. 

Leading Through Disruption: A New Approach to Technological Change Management

Let's imagine you own a successful company that excels at producing and selling a particular product or service. You've honed your processes over the years, and your values align with your current business model. But what happens when a disruptive technology enters the market, threatening to upend your established way of doing things? Do you stick with what you know, or do you adapt and evolve?

Navigating the uncertain waters of disruptive technology can be a daunting task for established companies. However, it's not an impossible mission. The key lies in understanding that markets for disruptive technologies are often unknowable at the time of development. Therefore, strategies should focus more on learning and discovery rather than execution.

Traditional processes and values that work well for sustaining technologies may not be suitable for disruptive ones. Companies must assess their resources, processes, and values (RPV) to determine their capability to handle disruptive technologies. 

Resources include all tangible assets like people, equipment, technology, etc. Processes are the methods by which an organization creates value, and values are the standards by which decisions are made within the organization.

Disruptive technologies often require different processes, compelling you to adapt and evolve. The truth is, adapting is easier said than done. Processes and values aren't easy to change; they're the bedrock of your company's culture. And if you try to use these old processes to deal with new challenges, you might find yourself spinning your wheels. 

So, how can you navigate this tricky situation? Well, you have three options: 

1. Acquire a different company whose processes and values better suit the new task.
2. Try to change the processes and values of your current company.
3. Create a separate organization with new processes and values to tackle the new challenge.

Notably, the size of an opportunity can also greatly influence a company's approach to disruptive technologies. Large organizations often struggle to allocate resources to small, emerging markets due to their focus on high-margin products and substantial growth needs. Therefore, creating a separate, autonomous organization for tackling disruptive technologies can be a more feasible solution.

Companies like Hewlett-Packard, Toyota, and Digital Equipment Corporation provide valuable lessons on adapting to disruptive technologies. For example, Hewlett-Packard's failure with its Kittyhawk disk drive was attributed to the company's rigid adherence to a predetermined strategy, which proved to be wrong. Conversely, Honda's success in the North American motorcycle market was due to its ability to recognize the potential of a new market and adapt accordingly.

These stories highlight the importance of flexible, discovery-driven planning, a focus on nascent markets, and the ability to recognize and address organizational incapabilities.

Can Your Company Adapt to Disruptive Technologies Like Hewlett-Packard and Toyota Did?

When leading firms stumble from positions of industry leadership by providing technology that exceeds the market's demands, it creates an opportunity for disruptive technology to emerge. This phenomenon is called "performance oversupply".

Performance oversupply can trigger a change in the basis of competition in a product's market. When an oversupply occurs, it often leads to a shift in the criteria by which customers choose one product over another, signaling a transition in the product life cycle. This shift can create opportunities for disruptive technologies to invade the market.

One example we looked at is the disk drive industry. In the late 1980s, the capacity of average disk drives had surpassed what the mainstream market demanded. This oversupply led to computer makers switching to smaller 3.5-inch drives, despite their higher cost per megabyte. The shift in demand was not about price or performance, but about size and convenience.

Another example is the accounting software market. Intuit's Quickbooks software captured a large market share by offering simple, reliable, and convenient software at a time when other accounting software packages were becoming increasingly complicated. 

Looking at the product life cycle, we see that performance oversupply is an important factor driving the transition from one phase to the next. Initially, when no available product satisfies the functionality requirements of the market, the basis of competition tends to be product functionality. But once two or more products credibly satisfy the market’s demand for functionality, customers begin to choose products based on other factors, such as reliability and convenience. 

This reminds us that it's crucial for managers to understand these dynamics to effectively chart their own strategies for designing, building, and selling disruptive products. 

Mastering Disruption: Navigating Dynamics of Technological Change in the Disk Drive and Accounting Industries

Successful companies can find themselves struggling or even failing when confronted with certain types of market and technological changes. This is not due to a lack of innovation or execution but often because of the nature of the changes themselves. 

Disruptive technologies, which are innovations that might initially seem to worsen product performance but offer other appealing features, can be particularly challenging. Such technologies can outpace what markets need and can be influenced by the customers and financial structures of successful companies.

Traditional planning and marketing techniques often fall short in dealing with disruptive technologies. Instead, an approach that acknowledges forecasts and strategies, known as discovery-based planning, can be more effective. Moreover, it's important to understand that an organization's capabilities can also become its disabilities, as processes and values that work well in one context may fail in another.

Leadership in disruptive technologies can provide enormous returns, but the challenge for large companies is to find a way to nurture these opportunities within their organizational structure. This often means creating or acquiring smaller organizations that can focus on these opportunities without being distracted by the demands of the larger company. 

Furthermore, shifts in market demand and product performance can significantly alter competitive dynamics in an industry. Thus, it is vital for companies to remain adaptable, understand market trajectories, and prepare for potential changes in order to thrive in the face of disruptive technological change.

Home

Trending

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History