Critical Review on an innovation managment article - Essay Example

Assignment1: Critical Review of Kumar et al (2000), From Market Driven to Market Driving. Yousef Albaharnah 2083102 Most of the companies follow thestandard market practices based upon market research. However, there are a few trend setters who pave a new path. Kumar et al (2000) provide an insight into the both kinds of companies in their article, “ From Market Driven to Market Driving”. The prior strive to maintain the status quo and do only incremental innovations, the latter comes up entirely distinct approach to the business and set new standards in the industry.

According to the authors, the latter are the market drivers. The most important feature of the market driving companies is their visionary teams which see the opportunities where other see only obstacles. Kumar et al(2000) discuss six other qualities of such companies: mission oriented inexperienced staff motivated to try new ideas; new higher or lower standards of price along with radical value innovation to compel the consumers to be the customer; a customer education system to create awareness of the value innovations; the values exceeding the existing customer expectations; consequently a motivated customer that becomes the ambassador; and new unfamiliar distribution channels to manage the business in a better way.

I found this article interesting and informative. The authors not only presented the basics of market driving organizations but also gave recommendations to transform a traditional company into innovative market driver. The opening of the article is bit dramatic as the authors presented the concepts of radical innovation and incremental innovation along with a success story of Aravind Eye Hospital. In fact, the presentation of the story motivated me to study the whole article. Further, authors give a strong introduction and guide readers about the structure of the essay.

They indicate that a reader will find three things in this article: concept of market driving companies; market driven and other companies; and how other companies can become market driving. Then the authors follow a consistent structure throughout the article. They present a concept in a few lines and then give examples from a range of companies to establish their point. Moreover, they cite various quality works to support their view-point. They made their points clearer by using figures, tables and bullet points.

The closing of the article with two powerful cases once again motivates the reader either further investigate the topic or as a practitioner try out some innovative idea. Notes and reference at the end of the article help reader to further explore the topic. In general I liked the article but there are a few lacks which make the article scholarly less importance. The authors do not adopt a scientific method to draw some reliable conclusion. For instance, they are not consistent with the selection of variables that make a company market driving.

In table1 they contrasted market driving companies and other companies in nine areas. However, neither in introduction nor in next sections these nine areas are the base of the discussion. Rather they shift to ‘common features’ of market driving companies to elaborate their distinct style. The authors did not develop, analyze and prove their thesis of radical innovation with the help of consistent data. They presented the thesis by using the case of Aravind Eye Hospital, provided comparison between market driven and market driving companies with some other businesses, and advise transformational processes with few other examples.

Further, while discussing the ‘common features’, the authors could have given a complete analysis of all 25 companies to prove the effectiveness of the common features. However, they adopted anecdotal way and just cited different success stories without taking into account their diverse variables The article relays mostly upon anecdotes and does not utilize empirical or analytical method. There could be different variables contributing to the success of the market driving companies. However, the authors presented success of those companies under the ‘common features’ to prove their view-point.

Some companies cited under the heading visionary leadership, may have some other features that contributed to their success. For instant, they cited the example of CNN while discussing two of the common features: guided by vision rather than market research and value creation through new price point. It is really unreliable to owe the success of those companies to the only to features. Further, what I learned through this article is that radical innovation is a hit and trial process. Thus everyone will have to invent his or her own wheel.

The need is to study and find the variables that contribute to the radical innovation. Moreover, many examples discussed are ambiguous and do not contribute to develop any clear point. For instance, advising on developing competitive teams, the authors cite the example of wireless divisions of Motorola. Has the authors discussed t the steps which the divisions followed, it would have given some clear guideline for readers. Similarly, the authors mentioned that at Sony, the transfer of Mr.Kamoto caused the floppy disk success in the market despite the fact that he had no experience and knowledge of the field.

Such conclusions are too subjective to be relied upon. Mostly, the tone of the article is subjective in nature as the authors pick and choose the examples that ‘fit’ into their point. For instant, while discussing ‘Select and Match Employees for Creativity’ the authors cite the example of Nissan. It never comes before and never after. Initially, the authors discuss the two components of the successful market driving companies: discontinuous leap in value proposition and implementation of unique business system.

However later in discussion, they do not address directly to these component. All their discussion turns to the common features. They left it upon the reader to arrange and conclude themselves which feature will work for what component. The examples supporting the view-point of the authors have not been selected on some scientific basis. They have not mentioned any criterion behind the selection. Thus it is hard to say that to what extend the recommendations of the authors could be generalized.

In general I liked the article for its presentation of ideas, its variety of examples and its general recommendations for becoming a market driving company. However, the suggested components of market driving companies and recommendations have not been supported by any scientific data. Thus this article is good starter on the topic. Reference: KUMAR et al (2000) From Market Drieven to Market Driving, European Management Journal, 18( 2), pp. 129–142