Innovation Management as Modification of Already Existing Invention - Case Study Example

Innovation management Name: Institution: Course Date Introduction Innovation entails modification of an already existing invention. These innovations are brought about by technological changes and development in the research center. Innovation is classified into two, closed and open innovations. In all invented things, and innovation can be made upon them for their betterment (Yoo, 2013, pp. 227). Also, innovation can be meant for the introduction of a new commodity. Therefore, some innovations are made based on power advancement. The essay reviews the technology, process and the innovations which are disruptive. It also gives arguments on whether innovations are born or are made. From it, we realize that innovations are brought about by several issues. Some are as a result of the availability of opportunity by the innovators (West, 2014, pp. 824). Innovation management. From several definitions, innovation is seen as a process meant for the generation of value on something through development, creation or implementation of modern and new ideologies, services, products as well as technologies. When innovation is born, it, therefore, insinuates that the innovators are in a fixed and planned life style. They are also found to make decisions logically, under given objectives with structured thinking. Besides, their attention is based on the actuality of the situation on the innovations (Slater, 2014, pp. 559). The innovators here receive external stimuli to energize them and power them for the work. Innovation of iPhone Besides, many innovators in the technological department are done basing on the power source powering the items or machines. Others are done as a way of bringing a new picture in the market with better services to the nation. An example is the iPhone innovation. The success of iPhones has been fueled by several factors under the innovation bracket. These factors include, iPhone Company constructed trust on their goods to their consumers. Their services and products after invention were reliable. Therefore, even after innovations are made on them, their demand also increases thus their success. Also, the firm assures their customers to have the warranty for their goods and services. Besides, the innovations made on the iPhones as compared to other communication devices was great. They all came with better features, which led to their demand. Therefore, they have highly demanded thus a great development in the innovation firms (Martín-de Castro, 2015, pp. 146). Entry of Apple to the market. A high level of risks was involved when Apple decided to enter the market to launch the iPhone. These risks were brought about by the presence of other companies in the market whose goods and services were related to theirs. To convince the consumers that their products are better as well as their services in relation to the other firms offering the same services and products. Also, a risk of the high demand of their iPhone in relation to the products produced was experienced. We had a large number being aware of the quality services and products from the Apple brand. Therefore, they rushed to have a copy of the same. It is discouraging to have more customers than goods. The innovations made by the Apple led to the production of better iPhones (Nagano, 2014, pp. 76). Dyson’s innovation on vacuum cleaner In a different case study of Dyson, he tried to make some innovations on the vacuum cleaner. His thoughts were fueled by extraction of dust by the industrial cyclone. He uses the idea to the vacuum cleaner thus an innovation on the vacuum cleaner. From the idea, Dyson realized that the cyclone reduces the demand for a bag thus giving a constant suction performance. The demerit in it is that there is a need for a Drucker process for its success. His innovation was highly rejected since it was expensive to the consumers (Tidd, 2016, pp. 1026). Therefore, many consumers preferred the traditional vacuum cleaner. They compare the price of Dyson's vacuum cleaner which is twice as that of the traditional vacuum cleaner. Dyson managed to defend his innovations patent to that of the Hoover. Despite the many challenges and risks of retailers and customers not buying his product, he ended up leading in the global market. He is viewed as the leading producer of the better vacuum cleaner (Brexendorf, 2015, pp. 551). Besides, he has other products which have been marketed by the vacuum cleaner. In response to the questions, Dyson's vacuum cleaner is a disruptive innovation. Besides, several reasons led to the dismiss of Dyson's innovation by the Hoover and Electrolux along sides their major distributions. Consumers go for quality, not quantity. Also, the services provided by Dyson's innovation and the ease of use of the cleaner contributed greatly to dismiss. The Hoover and Electrolux could have counter checked on the changes Dyson made in his innovation and implement them in their vacuum cleaners. That would help in outdoing Dyson's innovation in the market during a long time of rejection of his products and services (Dodgson, 2014, pp. 476). Analysis of innovation management In the analysis of the innovation management, it is evident that there is a technological “s” curve as a result of innovations based on technology. This “S” curve is brought about by the discontinuity in technology. It occurs when a shift is evident from a technology that already existed to the new technology. An innovation recording “S” shift is the steel, ceramic and the Nickel Company. Also, the market entry of the innovated goods is of concern too. Some firms had their goods and services record minimal market entry time. They include Ford that produces Affordable Automobile, Intel producing Microprocessor, Rolls-Royce producing Jet Engine, 3M producing Scotch Tape, WL Gore producing Breathable Fabrics as well as the Pilkington whose product is Float Glass. They managed to solve the challenges associated with the market entry of new goods thus being the first Mover winners in the market entry (Goffin, 2016). We also have other forms who lost it in managing challenges in marketing the innovations. The Boeing firm, led by De Havilland failed in marketing their innovated Jet Aircraft together with the Apple form led by IBM failing in the market entry of their Smartphones. The Microsoft Company lost it in marketing their PC OS as well as the Samsung Company in marketing the Microwave oven they had invented. The first to market potential was advantageous and disadvantageous too. On the advantages, we had protection by secrecy and patenting whose demerit was high pioneering cost. The experience curve is a merit whose demerit is uncertain demand low market (Volberda, 2013, pp. 12). Protection on innovations 1. Lead time On the intellectual property and open innovation networks, we have legal strategies of protection and the generic protection strategy viewed. Lead time under the protection strategy is all about the time taken for the competitors to duplicate the innovations made on the form. Therefore, not all firms have the same opportunities of market entry as well as the dependence of market. The pharmaceuticals and aerospace firms are highly dependent on their products with the automotive and electrical having a medium chance of being dependent. Lastly, food and telecoms have a very low dependence of their products (An, 2016, pp. 134). 2. Learning curve Besides, interpretation of the learning curve shows that the cost per unit increases with the decrease in the cumulative output and vice versa. Therefore, the first movers are greatly advantaged by the learning curve. On secrecy, it is rated as effective in innovation processes even though the products can undergo reverse engineering as well as having a reduction of overtime with the movement of the staff. We have trade secret which is described by “NDA” Non-Disclosure Agreements. It is a challenge for a competitor company to know all the steps and ingredients used by the firm in its innovations. An example is the companies that produce soft drinks. Another firm can duplicate coca cola products but will never produce exact soft drinks as Coca Cola Company. This has been fueled by the secrecy maintained by the coca cola company (Lichtenthaler, 2015, pp. 607). 3. Secrecy Duplication Therefore, on secrecy duplication is determined with how complex the product is. The more complex the innovation is done on a product, the lower the chances of the competitor firms to duplicate it. An example is the IBM that is leading in in the mainframe of the computers. This is supported by the supers-dement by the PCs as the mainframe. A complex innovation has been made on the mainframe is the Nintendo Wii. This is an innovation strategy which is the key to the innovation. It is a complex product whose innovation is hard to copy. Also on secrecy, the more standard the product is the higher the lead protection is found. MS Windows system is an example of a standard product of innovation. Standard goods are hard to imitate within the short due to the medium terms present. These standard goods are regionally specific with strong particulars being made when the company operates in an environment that is regulatory. An example of the well-standardized firms is the Rolls-Royce in designing the Aero-engine and the Toyota Company on making innovations in the automotive quality (Havlícek, 2013, pp. 57). 4. Zero-sum game On the standards too, a zero-sum game is evident whereby there is a high risk of strategy. An example is the MS windows, Blue-ray Disc and the VHS Company. On the legal protection strategy to be the arm named "Copyright". For a firm’s brand to be given the copyright mark, it had to be proofed by its originality and authorship. Therefore, its protection is greatly guaranteed. In the management of innovations, one has to obtain the products or services copyright approval thus increasing its lead protection. This copyright assures the author of lasting long since it expires 70 years after the author’s death. Also, the graphic, computer program, and the writing innovations have the automatic right for all sorts of original works (Dameri, 2015, pp. 864). 5. Design Rights Design rights are also a key in the provision of legal protection to the innovations. This right offers protection to the shapes of the original design of the product. Therefore, different firms should show a difference in the design of their products. An example is shown by the difference thereby in the shape and position of some external features of iPhone in comparison to the Samsung Galaxy brand (An, 2016, pp. 139). The protection is offered for 10-15 years counting from the day the product was first marketed. 6. Trade mark A trade mark is the identifying and distinguishing feature of firms. The trademarks should differ from one company to the other as a way of offering legal protection in the innovation management plan. The words in the trade mark logo, the graphics, colors, and shapes too should differ. This prevents the confusion that can be there when different companies have similar features and wordings in their logo. It may result to benefiting a firm whose products are not substantial in relation to the original firm whose innovative products are of good quality ((Lichtenthaler, 2015, pp. 608). These trademarks are made to distinguish a product and services basing the distinguishment on the producing company. Therefore, a registration fee is paid at the Intellectual Property Office for the assurance of legal protection to the company. Patent Principals We have several principals of the patent. They involve the actions of the inventors. Several investors may decide to disclose the nature of the inventions. It may be in exchange for an exclusive right in order to hire, sell, make and make imports as well as using patented processes and products. Also, they may do the disclosure in exchange for the monopoly of rights for a duration of the patent. Another principle is that infringement happens when the unauthorized team discloses the nature of the invention purposing for the same exchange as those of the inventors. These patentable are the ideologies brought on board concerning the technical characters. These characters should be relating to the devices, products as well as the processes that process industrial applicability that is inventive and have novelty. Patentable cannot be disclosed ideas, of obvious ideologies or even arts. Also, they cannot be scientific theories or discoveries, computer program, therapy or surgery as well as methods of perfuming business. In response to the questions, patents tend to restrict innovation for large organizations (Dameri, 2015, pp. 876). These brought about by the numerous limitations thereby as a result of the patent. Also, the patents support innovation for start-ups and SMEs since the many innovators are not yet informed of the limitations thereby in the patents. These limitations include the presence of different territories having extra cost as the patent as not successful always. Besides, 0-20 years limiting time span is much for an invention management (West, 2014, pp. 819). Conclusion. In conclusion, we find that innovation involves modification of an already existing invention. These innovations are as a result of the technological changes and development in the research center. The patents support innovation for a start-up and SMEs. It is due to the numerous innovators who are not well informed of the limitations thereby in the patents (An, 2016, pp. 141). These limitations include the presence of different territories having extra cost as the patent as not successful always. Besides, 0-20 years limiting time span is much for an invention management. Also, patents are the key cause of restrictions to innovation for large organizations. The compressibility of products reduces the risks of it being duplicated by the competitive companies. Also, the more standard the product. The more the ability to receive legal protection the innovation is. Also, use of the unique trademark is a protection providing the factor to the innovation. It is evident that there is a technological “s” curve as a result of innovations based on technology. A high level of risks was involved when Apple decided to enter the market to launch the iPhone Reference An, H.J. and Ahn, S.J., 2016. Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its implication for innovation management in Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, pp.132-142. Brexendorf, T.O., Bayus, B. and Keller, K.L., 2015. Understanding the interplay between brand and innovation management: findings and future research directions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(5), pp.548-557. Dameri, R.P. and Ricciardi, F., 2015. Smart city intellectual capital: an emerging view of territorial systems innovation management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4), pp.860-887. Dodgson, M., 2014. Collaboration and innovation management. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, pp.462-481. Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R., 2016. Innovation Management: Effective Strategy and Implementation. Palgrave Macmillan. Havlícek, K., Thalassinos, E. and Berezkinova, L., 2013. Innovation Management and Controlling in SMEs. European Research Studies, 16(4), p.57. Lichtenthaler, U., 2015. A note on outbound open innovation and firm performance. R&D Management, 45(5), pp.606-608. Martín-de Castro, G., 2015. Knowledge management and innovation in knowledge-based and high-tech industrial markets: The role of openness and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, pp.143-146. Nagano, M.S., Stefanovitz, J.P. and Vick, T.E., 2014. Innovation management processes, their internal organizational elements and contextual factors: An investigation in Brazil. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33, pp.63-92. Slater, S.F., Mohr, J.J. and Sengupta, S., 2014. Radical product innovation capability: Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), pp.552-566. Tidd, J. and Thuriaux‐Alemán, B., 2016. Innovation management practices: cross‐sectorial adoption, variation, and effectiveness. R&D Management, 46(S3), pp.1024-1043. Volberda, H.W., Van Den Bosch, F.A. and Heij, C.V., 2013. Management innovation: Management as fertile ground for innovation. European Management Review, 10(1), pp.1-15. West, J. and Bogers, M., 2014. Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), pp.814-831. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Chesbrough, H., 2014. Open innovation: The next decade. Yoo, Y., 2013. The tables have turned: How can the information systems field contribute to technology and innovation management research? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(5), p.227. Read More