That’s what a client of mine told me when I made a presentation to him about a new product. I was speaking about the product’s features and benefits and recorded”state-of-the-art technology” or something to that effect, as one of these. I understood later that he had been right, at least within the context of how I used”Technology” in my presentation. But I started thinking about whether he is right in different contexts also.
A: the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area: engineering Two b: a capability is given by the practical application of knowledge : the technical aspects of a particular field of endeavor Technology (from Greek τÎχνη, techne, “art, skill, cunning of hand”; and -λογÎ¯α, -logia) is the making, modification, utilization, and knowledge of machines, tools, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of business, in order to resolve a problem, enhance a preexisting solution to a problem, reach a goal, manage an applied input/output terms or perform a particular purpose.
It may also refer to the collection of these tools, including machines, alterations, arrangements, and processes. Technologies significantly affect human and other animal species’ ability to control and adapt to their natural environments. The term can be applied generally or to particular areas: examples include construction technology, medical technology, and information technology. Both definitions revolve around precisely the exact same thing – application and use. Lots of individuals mistakenly believe it’s the technology that drives innovation. Yet from the definitions above, that’s clearly not true.
It’s a chance that defines innovation and technology that enables innovation. Consider the classic”Build a better mousetrap” example taught in most business schools. You may have the technology to construct a better mousetrap, but in case you’ve got no mice or the old mousetrap works well, there’s absolutely no chance and the On the other hand, if you’re overrun with mice then the chance exists to innovate a product with your technology.
Another example, one with which I’m intimately familiar, are consumer electronics startup businesses. I have been associated with those that succeeded and those who failed. People who failed could not find the chance to come up with a purposeful innovation using their technology. Actually, to survive, these firms had to sew faithfully into something entirely different and if they were lucky they could benefit from derivatives of the original technology. More often than not, the first technology wound up in the garbage heap. Technology, thus, is an enabler whose greatest value proposition is to make improvements to our lives. So as to be relevant, it has to be used to make innovations that are driven by chance. Many companies list technology as one of the competitive benefits.
A revolutionary technology is one that enables new businesses or enables solutions to issues that were previously not feasible. Not only did it spawn new businesses and products, but it spawned other revolutionary technology – transistor technology, integrated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. All of which provide lots of the goods and services we consume now. Taking a look at the number of semiconductor companies that exist now (with new ones forming daily ), I would say not. Not as many businesses, but you’ve got Intel, AMD, ARM, and a plethora of organizations building custom quad-core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc).
So again, not a great deal of competitive advantage. Competition from competing technologies and effortless access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive advantage of any specific technology. Android vs iOS is a fantastic illustration of how this works. Apple used its technology to present iOS and gained an early market advantage. However, Google, using its version of Unix (a rival technology), caught up relatively fast. The reasons for this lie not in the underlying technology, but in the way the goods made possible by these technologies were brought to market (free vs. walled garden, etc.) as well as the gaps in the strategic visions of every corporation.
Evolutionary technology is one that incrementally builds upon the foundation of revolutionary technology. But by its very nature, the incremental change is easier for a competitor to match leapfrog. The customer went back to picking Company A or Company V based on cost, service, policy, whatever, but not based on technology. Thus technology could have been applicable in the short term, but in the long run, it became irrelevant. In the world today, technologies tend to quickly become commoditized, and within any specific technology lies the seeds of its own passing.