Existing and Possible Generation Model - Essay Example

 Roy Rothwell Roy Rothwell, a British sociologist and an academic product of the University of Sussex, is regarded as an individual who played a major role in industrial innovation. He has significantly contributed to the understanding of novelty management. Various distinct business environments have separately led to the innovation of the so called management generations over a period of 5 decades. These models include: the first generation which was put into use from 1950s to mid-1960s and it focused on technological push. This was aimed at swift industrial growth and new technological prospects. The second generation innovation was popular in the mid-1960s to late 1970s. This generation focused on the existing technologies and used them to develop a new brand of products. It took advantage of the balance in the supply and demand chain. The pull on the market was exploited by the highly efficient companies, more like a survival for the fittest analogy. In the early 1970s to mid-1980s, the third generation came into focus. It is known as the coupling model because it integrated the technological push and market pull generations. Companies had to adopt new strategies that involved rationalization and consolidation.5 The fourth generation brought about an emphasis on manufacturing strategies. Manufacturing companies formed alliances and this shortened product life-cycles in the market. It was rampant in the period of early 1980s to early 1990s and was branded, the integrated model. The fifth generation model was a target on survival in the market. Companies focused on flexibility and adaptability to changing times. It was the adopted from the mid-1990s. The companies had to be more competitive so as to keep up with the industrial revolution, fast innovation was therefore an arsenal that top companies possessed.1 The models stated above came with their pros and cons. A ‘one size fits all’ strategy is yet to be innovated. Like all great ideas, the business management novelties followed certain procedures before implementation: the idea generation, concept development, evaluation, selection and ultimately the actualization of the concept through implementation. Innovation can be described as a technological push (like in the case of the first generation strategy) or a market pull (like in the case of the second generation strategy) or a combination of both which outdoes the individual strategies. I would however, adopt a network approach type of model where innovation is approached simultaneously from an internal and external aspect. Each of the first five generation models seemed to focus mainly on one part of the innovation process and yet for success to be achieved, one has to incorporate the full cycle without preference. Key elements to put into consideration in the journey to exploit the whole cycle is aiming at boosted competitiveness and financial security. The First Generation Model (Technological Push) It describes innovation as being pulled by technological needs. Innovation in the technological field has to be a continuous process. This is the bit that makes all the difference as there are companies that can keep up and those that cannot. A form of discontinuity in innovation may destroy a company’s competitiveness Hamel (2006). He describes innovation capability as a means by which inventive productions can be facilitated. Consistency is therefore very essential in this model, a company needs to have proactive innovators to fuel the novelty. Time is an important factor to consider in the whole process. Decision making is therefore put under a timeline. Exploitation of knowledge is what defines innovation capability, utilization of knowledge in a particular technological field leads to the perfect execution of an idea.2 Organisational efficacy is yet another show of innovation capability that a company needs to have. It is the basic tool for executing innovation ideas that defines the whole process of implementation. It is a combination of proper leadership techniques, the organizational working culture, the competency of the workforce and the resourcing tactics which are dependent on the company’s strategies. There are basically two dimensions to innovation implementation: the target client and the technical approach to the project.3 These two aspects’ combined effect is often underestimated and it may lead to representation of different bases for the same delivering value. For example: telegraphy versus the telephone. The Second Generation Model (Market Pull) Now that the technologies were in place, this model aimed at methods of exploiting the market. The technologies had brought a solution to the consumer’s needs but more value needed to be generated from this solution. How to exploit these solutions was the key element in this particular model. There were various areas that had the potential to be exploited. These included: selling the same products to different markets- in so doing, the companies were able to globalize their market. Another strategy was to apply new techniques in the marketing of their products through incorporating new partners (spin off companies). The type of innovation played a major role in the means used to exploit the relevant market. Whether the innovation was service related or a product. If for example, the innovation was a first-hand business model then the avenue to exploit would be the enterprise architecture. The advantage of market exploitation was that it led to the exploration of new novelties.4 The Third Generation Model (Coupling Model) As time progresses, there is increase in competition between firms internationally. Adoption of technology to improve the quality of products that reach the consumer is already a norm in the manufacturing and processing industries. Companies are doing so to get an edge in response to the market needs. At the time this model was adopted it was considered a strategy of hope because the marketability of products was dependent on the creativity of the innovators.7 But that was then; recent times have turned what were then mind-blowing innovations into daily commodities. In such companies, the demand growth has dwindled or even disappeared. In this approach, the general managers work hand in hand with the Research and Development (R&D) managers. They assess the potential risks, assess the cost of production and Steady these variables with the portfolio of R&D. as the managers share insight; a productive working relationship is developed between the two parties. In such companies, the research and development department is fully integrated with the rest of the company and in so doing; partnership is promoted with other departments like sales. Their communication network is designed in such a way that it links R&D with marketing thus creating a continuum between their activities. In addition to this, their research is business oriented. This works to put the business context into the researchers’ minds. The whole company in the long run gets a logic of the business drive.7 There are certain key practises that will ensure that this process is managed effectively. The existence of a common vocabulary between R&D and marketing. R&D objectives and the marketing objectives which are business oriented need to have a common language so that conflict of interest is absent. The technical approach used by R&D employees needs to be relayed in business terms to the marketing department. A company should have a backlog of ideas which should come from the management this is in turn an aid to help researchers know when it is right to terminate a project that is showing little or no development. Finally, we have the R&D business partners; they should provide first-hand information about the state of the market tonR&D to allow decisions to be made in good time. The Fourth Generation Model (Integrated Model) The fast moving of processes is what this model entails, especially in the case of a service industry. A fourth generation service platform is necessary for companies to get: fast deployment, easy configuration, flexible adaptation and smooth upgrades. A fourth generation service desk platform enables one to jump start the greater part of work needed to get the service desk up and running. A flexible adaptation can be achieved, simply by the use of a graphical user type of interface. In this market, firms prefer to engage in technological partnerships. This is in the aim of reducing the risk that is associated with the market flooding with fellow competitors in the technological field. This was also because after the war period, science based industries revolutionized as R&D projects grew in complexity. The trick was for a company to form an alliance with one that had complementary knowledge on a matter concerning a particular technological field; inclusive of suppliers and even consumers. This in turn reduced the uncertainty that came with the market. Universities and government laboratories were a useful source of information at the time and as a result, the stock of information of many organizations became outdated quickly as the life-cycle of each new product became shorter with time.8 In these alliances, the R&D managers of the firms taking part in the agreement appoint committees to supervise the agreement process. But as time passed, corporations opened and dedicated a whole department to handle the negotiations and handle the contract proceedings. These departments were inclusive of research centres whose role is to relay information from partners to R&D members. In the period of 1980s and 1990s, the business scene was very dynamic and businesses dropped the linear models of operation and adopted new routines centred on flexibility. They also developed feedback mechanisms from within the corporation, from stake holders and from the customers. These routines helped to reduce the number of failed R&D projects, minimize on lead time and cut back on production costs. A good example of this is the MacMillan Bloedel (Canada) in its alliance with a Canadian chemical company and a German manufacturer of mechanical presses.8 (Pg113) The Fifth Generation Model Rothewell (1994) laid out certain factors that played a role in boosting development speed and efficiency in production and service delivery. At the top of the list is the use of a categorical time-based tactic, commitment from the top managerial positions, adoption of a horizontal management style- this is a system in which employees get a chance to contribute to decision making through offering their opinions on certain matters to the management. Use of self-driven and motivated project leaders in R&D, high product-quality requirements by management, concurrent engineering- this is borrowed from the third generation model where the marketing and A&D managers have a partnership. The use of an up to date database, accessing technical and external know how, use of intra-firm communication network, replacing prototyping with simulation models to better the product evaluation process and the use of proficient systems as an aid to design.1 This model has proved to be quite beneficial in subsidizing development expenses and in snow-balling the rate at which development is taking place. It also provides a checklist to evaluate and optimize novelty management activities. However, this model in its representation does not shed light on the complex reality. On paper this model has proven to be the ultimate price since it is a blend of its predecessors. Moreover, it is open ended as it lacks an expiration date despite the changing times. It is therefore not plainly defined at an operative level unlike the other four models. This fifth model has clearly paved a way for a sixth model to appear. This is evident in that all it did was to focus on improving technologies that facilitate novelty.9 Extended Innovation Network (sixth model) Technological strength is the main factor that determines the relevance that a company has in relation to its home country. Whether it is based in the homeland or on foreign ground it will be considered as a major firm based on its technological strength. The conditions that surround the founding of a company play a role in their choice of technological approaches. As much as globalization is a determinant in the rate of growth of a company, the innovation skill that is rooted in the home country also affects development. A factor that affects the innovation skill is the amount of resources that a country’s business corporations devote to innovation and sartorial specialism. The population’s demand fuels the direction that emerging firms take in the innovation criteria. Firms should therefore adopt a globalized outlook so as to satisfy the global needs. This calls for corporations to not only focus on improving technologies but also to diversify them. References 1. Rothwell. Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process. United Kingdom, 1994. 2. Carneiro A. How does Knowledge Management Influence Innovation and Competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.4, no.2 3. Abernathy W. et al. Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction. Research Policy, Pg3-22, 1985. 4. Tidd J. et al. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Third Edition, 2000. 5. Philip A. et al. Third Generation R&D. Harvard School Business Press, 1991. 6. Jorge N. et al. Fourth Generation R&D: From Linear Models to Flexible Innovation. Journal of Business Research. Elsevier (Canada), 1999. 7. R. Katz and T. J. Allen. Project Performance and the Locus of Influence in the R&DMatrix. Academy ofManagement Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 67-87, March 1985. 8. Jorge N. Fourth Generation R&D: From Linear Models of Flexible Innovation. University of Quebec. Pg113, 2001. 9. Roy R. et al. Five Generations of Innovation. Proven Models. Retrieved from, http://www.provenmodels.com/575/five-generations-of-innovation/roy-r.-rothwell Read More