If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Disruptive Technology
From the late Dr Petr Beckmann
The Innovator's Dilemma - When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail by Clayton M. Christensen, Harvard Business School Press (1997), is a very perceptive analysis of the dynamics of technological advance - especially the introduction of radically new products. Christensen defines two types of technology - "sustaining technology'' and "disruptive technology.'' Sustaining technology is that with a developed market. In well-managed companies which supply this technology, the products advance as rapidly as improvements in science and engineering permit -along the lines desired by the customers of the company. Managers carefully determine the desires of their customers and plan engineering development projects to satisfy those customers as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. These companies develop and infuse their work force with ethics, procedures, and goals consistent with this process in their respective industries. Disruptive technologies, on the other hand, are usually simpler and cheaper than the sustaining technology, but also offer less capability. They do not fit the sustaining market and, typically, provide lower profit margins. For this reason, they are usually shunned by well-managed companies - which are often later destroyed by them. Christensen illustrates these ideas with real examples from different industries including those producing computer disk drives, earth excavators, motor bikes, insulin for diabetics, and (as an illustration of a possible future case) automobiles - conventional vs. electric cars. Figures 1, 2 and 3 (adapted from numerous excellent figures with which his book is illustrated) show some of his primary ideas. In Figure 1, the dotted lines represent the range of performance required by consumers. For example, in disk drives this could be drive capacity, where the sustaining technology was, at the time, the 5.25 inch disk, while the new disruptive technology was the 3.5 inch disk. During the first part of the illustrated time interval, performance of the 5.25 disk satisfies the market, while the capacity of the 3.5 disk is too low. In the course of time, however, improvements in the 5.25 move its capacity beyond that desired in the market, while the 3.5 gradually achieves capacity sufficient to enter the large market. The critical time is before this happens - when the disruptive technological innovation cannot yet satisfy the requirements of the mainstream market. During this time, those who are developing the new technology obtain a great advantage, so that late entering competitors cannot catch up. At the same time, the new technology must be marketed for alternative applications (that may not even be known at the time of its introduction), at low profit margins, and in relatively minor markets. This makes it unattractive to the mainstream companies whose customers are not asking for it and whose profits are so large that the emerging technology would be a nuisance without economic advantage. Moreover, the mainstream companies are continually striving for innovations that will increase the capabilities of their product and, thereby, allow them to enter markets above them where profit margins are greater - not below them where margins are less. The result of this phenomenon is that most mainstream companies - even though they are very well managed, increasing in profits, and very responsive to their customer's wishes - are unable to adopt disruptive technologies which eventually drive them out of business. Christensen, by means of real examples, shows that the most effective strategy is for large companies to start small, independent companies which they control financially - but not otherwise - to establish bases in disruptive technologies. Figure 2, illustrating some of the same points, also shows (illustrating with computer disk drives) the evolution of a product from a high-margin item to a commodity. When the disruptive technology (a smaller disk drive) improves to the point that its capacity is adequate, competition then shifts to size and then to reliability. Ultimately, when both technologies have outrun the technological needs of the market, competition shifts to price alone - a commodity market. Notice that throughout these steps, the established company must keep engineering its products downward and competing in markets with decreasing profit margins - while the disruptive company engineers upward and finds higher margin markets. This and the lead from early entry assures the demise of the established company. The understanding of these phenomena can affect the actual emergence of new technologies. Science and engineering are not enough. Many wonderful technological products are not available to us because industrial managers have not effectively brought them to market. In a final chapter, Christensen applies these lessons to the electric automobile. Clearly, as has been discussed in previous issues of Access to Energy, electric car technology cannot now produce a product that competes with the internal combustion engine. Is the electric automobile, however, a disruptive technology? Perhaps. The answer to this question depends upon whether or not electric cars can reach consumer standards. Figure 3, giving Christensen's estimates for these standards and the rate of development, suggests that they will. Meanwhile, as a beginning disruptive technology, the electric car must seek alternative markets that will value its disadvantages, and it must enter (and develop) those markets with a cheap, simple product. These markets will sustain its development. One such market suggested by Christensen is the potential for runabouts for teenagers. Parents might like the idea that their teenagers are driving cars with low range, poor acceleration, and low maximum speeds. If these cars were also much cheaper than conventional cars, this market might develop. As far as government forcing (with reference to California's rule that car companies must sell 2% electric cars in that state) and subsidies are concerned, Christensen observes that these merely distort the market and delay technological development. What cannot be accomplished is premature entry of the disruptive technology into the sustaining market. Therefore, for good reasons, automobile companies are resisting electric cars. Those auto companies that are wise, however, should set up small autonomous companies to deliver electric car technology to whoever will buy it for whatever use arises. Then they will be well-positioned if electric cars do eventually start to disrupt their market. If instead, the only market entries are forced upon the large auto companies by government regulation and subsidy, these entrenched malinvestments could prevent the advance of electric car technology and deprive consumers of a product that would eventually prove beneficial to them. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Steelgtr62" wrote in message ... Disruptive technologies, on the other hand, are usually simpler and cheaper than the sustaining technology, but also offer less capability. They do not fit the sustaining market and, typically, provide lower profit margins. For this reason, they are usually shunned by well-managed companies - which are often later destroyed by them. While the start of this thread is obviously a spam, I think that we are finally seeing some disruptive technology in the GA field. In particular, flat-panel displays. These will probably dominate the new aircraft market in the next few years and will certainly push down into the retrofit market as certification issues are gradually resolved. They are already appearing in the homebuilt market. My personal opinion is that these systems are unlikely to last as long as the airframe in which they are installed, but given their relative cost, ease of replacement, and the continuous improvement in their capability, we may be able to live with that. Vaughn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Steelgtr62" wrote in message ... Disruptive technologies, on the other hand, are usually simpler and cheaper than the sustaining technology, but also offer less capability. They do not fit the sustaining market and, typically, provide lower profit margins. For this reason, they are usually shunned by well-managed companies - which are often later destroyed by them. While the start of this thread is obviously a spam, I think that we are finally seeing some disruptive technology in the GA field. In particular, flat-panel displays. These will probably dominate the new aircraft market in the next few years and will certainly push down into the retrofit market as certification issues are gradually resolved. They are already appearing in the homebuilt market. My personal opinion is that these systems are unlikely to last as long as the airframe in which they are installed, but given their relative cost, ease of replacement, and the continuous improvement in their capability, we may be able to live with that. The flat panel displays are likely to last much longer than the items they replace, however. They are solid state, all electric, have few or no moving parts, etc. Compare that with traditional attitude indicators, heading indicators, and turn and bank coordinators. All of these generally require replacement every few hundred hours, along with vacuum pumps, hoses, clamps, etc. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... "Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Steelgtr62" wrote in message ... Disruptive technologies, on the other hand, are usually simpler and cheaper than the sustaining technology, but also offer less capability. They do not fit the sustaining market and, typically, provide lower profit margins. For this reason, they are usually shunned by well-managed companies - which are often later destroyed by them. While the start of this thread is obviously a spam, I think that we are finally seeing some disruptive technology in the GA field. In particular, flat-panel displays. These will probably dominate the new aircraft market in the next few years and will certainly push down into the retrofit market as certification issues are gradually resolved. They are already appearing in the homebuilt market. My personal opinion is that these systems are unlikely to last as long as the airframe in which they are installed, but given their relative cost, ease of replacement, and the continuous improvement in their capability, we may be able to live with that. The flat panel displays are likely to last much longer than the items they replace, however. They are solid state, all electric, have few or no moving parts, etc. Compare that with traditional attitude indicators, heading indicators, and turn and bank coordinators. All of these generally require replacement every few hundred hours, along with vacuum pumps, hoses, clamps, etc. I still have an IBM PC XT that works as well as the day it was bought back in 1985. It just doesn't do anything useful in today's world. I expect the "glass cockpits" to be the same. The big power hungry LCD screens will quickly give way to much lighter and brighter OLED screens and enough additional useful features will be added to make the old systems obsolete even if they still work. I expect to see very light weight glass cockpits installed in Sport Light Aircraft that would look at home in a 777. If I had an opportunity to buy a tiny, fast single seater with a 100 HP diesel that was fully IFR capable, I'd jump at it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:Z%vcd.381390$mD.373163@attbi_s02... I still have an IBM PC XT that works as well as the day it was bought back in 1985. It just doesn't do anything useful in today's world. I expect the "glass cockpits" to be the same. That is precisely my point. Where I work we have tossed at least three generations of perfectly good computers over the last ten years. We are now replacing all of our phones with the new VOIP technology, and I am willing to bet you will not be able to find one of these units still in service five years from now. Vaughn |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Vaughn" wrote in message ... "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:Z%vcd.381390$mD.373163@attbi_s02... I still have an IBM PC XT that works as well as the day it was bought back in 1985. It just doesn't do anything useful in today's world. I expect the "glass cockpits" to be the same. That is precisely my point. Where I work we have tossed at least three generations of perfectly good computers over the last ten years. We are now replacing all of our phones with the new VOIP technology, and I am willing to bet you will not be able to find one of these units still in service five years from now. Vaughn I was at the Ralph Barnaby Lecture last night in Denver (About gliders and soaring presented by Russell Lee, curator at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum ). A lot of the diner table conversation was about the impending TSA regulations on flight instructors but another topic came up in relation to the Transportation Safety Administration. It seems that the government wants to know where every airborne aircraft is at all times. The FAA of course said "transponders" but it was pointed out that radar coverage still has large gaps particularly at low altitudes. (Burt Compton who operates a glider FBO in the west Texas town of Marfa pointed out that his tow plane transponders almost never blink.) NASA proposed ADS-B or automatic GPS position reporting. I expect that a variant of ADS-B will be mandated soon so get ready to yank that old Mode C transponder. Bill Daniels |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:mxwcd.487032$8_6.154356@attbi_s04... It seems that the government wants to know where every airborne aircraft is at all times. The FAA of course said "transponders" but it was pointed out that radar coverage still has large gaps particularly at low altitudes. (Burt Compton who operates a glider FBO in the west Texas town of Marfa pointed out that his tow plane transponders almost never blink.) NASA proposed ADS-B or automatic GPS position reporting. I expect that a variant of ADS-B will be mandated soon so get ready to yank that old Mode C transponder. That is not "Disruptive Technology", but rather "Disruptive Bureaucracy". We will all get a vote in a few weeks... Enough said. Vaughn |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Vaughn" wrote: "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:mxwcd.487032$8_6.154356@attbi_s04... It seems that the government wants to know where every airborne aircraft is at all times. The FAA of course said "transponders" but it was pointed out that radar coverage still has large gaps particularly at low altitudes. (Burt Compton who operates a glider FBO in the west Texas town of Marfa pointed out that his tow plane transponders almost never blink.) NASA proposed ADS-B or automatic GPS position reporting. I expect that a variant of ADS-B will be mandated soon so get ready to yank that old Mode C transponder. That is not "Disruptive Technology", but rather "Disruptive Bureaucracy". We will all get a vote in a few weeks... Enough said. Vaughn Yes -- but I don't think that it will matter regarding TSA. We have created a bureaucratic monster, at the behest of BOTH political parties! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news In article , "Vaughn" wrote: "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:mxwcd.487032$8_6.154356@attbi_s04... It seems that the government wants to know where every airborne aircraft is at all times. The FAA of course said "transponders" but it was pointed out that radar coverage still has large gaps particularly at low altitudes. (Burt Compton who operates a glider FBO in the west Texas town of Marfa pointed out that his tow plane transponders almost never blink.) NASA proposed ADS-B or automatic GPS position reporting. I expect that a variant of ADS-B will be mandated soon so get ready to yank that old Mode C transponder. That is not "Disruptive Technology", but rather "Disruptive Bureaucracy". We will all get a vote in a few weeks... Enough said. Vaughn Yes -- but I don't think that it will matter regarding TSA. We have created a bureaucratic monster, at the behest of BOTH political parties! Neither one of which is right. The middle will take back control...someday. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote: "Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news In article , "Vaughn" wrote: "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:mxwcd.487032$8_6.154356@attbi_s04... It seems that the government wants to know where every airborne aircraft is at all times. The FAA of course said "transponders" but it was pointed out that radar coverage still has large gaps particularly at low altitudes. (Burt Compton who operates a glider FBO in the west Texas town of Marfa pointed out that his tow plane transponders almost never blink.) NASA proposed ADS-B or automatic GPS position reporting. I expect that a variant of ADS-B will be mandated soon so get ready to yank that old Mode C transponder. That is not "Disruptive Technology", but rather "Disruptive Bureaucracy". We will all get a vote in a few weeks... Enough said. Vaughn Yes -- but I don't think that it will matter regarding TSA. We have created a bureaucratic monster, at the behest of BOTH political parties! Neither one of which is right. The middle will take back control...someday. I hope that you are right -- before they destroy us in the process. Unfortunately, history, in other countries has shown that the middle doesn't act until it is too late: Russia, post WWI Germany, etc. The fringes take control of political organizations and run things into the ground. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Living with Technology | quilljar | Aerobatics | 0 | July 30th 03 09:19 PM |