Innovation in Action - 3D Printing - Report Example

Innovation in action – 3D Printing 0 Introduction The involvement of technology in several aspects of modern life cannot be doubted. On the other hand, technology is characterized by continuous development, a trend that can be quite costly depending on the sector in which the relevant updates take place. At the same time, technology, by itself, may not be able to support growth if they are not followed by changes on practices and approaches. In fact, it has been proved that the progress in regard to all sectors, including health, education and commerce, can be mostly achieved by applying the principles of a particular concept: innovation. In the literature, innovation is described using different criteria. More specifically, innovation has been characterized as ‘the commercial or industrial application of something new’ (Schumpeter, Theory of Economic Development, in Stone et al., 2008: II-2) and as ‘the emphasis on the continuous differentiation of products and services’ (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 302). In any case, in order for an invention to be characterized as innovation three criteria need to be met: ‘novelty, commercialisation and implementation’ (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303). The value of innovation in regard to modern life is discussed in this study. Emphasis is given to a specific type of innovation: incremental innovation. The example of 3D Printing, an innovative printing method is used for showing the importance of innovation in different human activities. In particular, through this paper effort is made to answer the following question: Can innovation benefit modern life? The theories developed in the literature, as of this field, are presented. Also empirical findings, as available, are used for highlighting all aspects of this study’s subject. In other words, this paper is based on literature review, as a research method for exploring the issues under examination. It should be noted that studies published in academic journals and reports of non-governmental organisations, such as PWC and Deloitte, have been used for covering this study’s needs in terms of material. The characteristics and the effectiveness of 3D printing are analysed in order to highlight the practical aspects of the issue set by the study’s question, as described above. The structure of the study has been decided taking into consideration the subject involved and the research methodology chosen, as mentioned above. Thus, the study is divided in five sections: in Introduction an overview of the study’s subject, its essay question and the research methodology are presented. In the second part, the Literature Review addresses the issues included in the essay question; these issues are further explored through a case/ example which is analysed in section Three. In section Four the findings of sections Two and Three are discussed so that appropriate conclusions are made, as included in section Five. 2.0 Innovation, theory and practical aspects – Review of Literature 2.1 The concept of innovation Innovation, as a concept, can be described by emphasising on different issues. For example, there is the view that innovation has to incorporate ‘the identification of a new idea and its realisation in practice, i.e. its implementation’ (Urabe, 1988, in Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303). From a similar perspective, innovation has been related to the use of ‘new knowledge for creating new products, services and processes’ (Afuah 1998, in Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303). Also, innovation has many dimensions; the success of innovation is depended on the emphasis given to these dimensions (Abidin et al., 2011). Three are the dimensions of innovation that have high importance: ‘leadership, process and outcome’ (Abidin et al., 2011: 67). It should be noted that innovation requires the use of material and/ or of knowledge. These elements are known as inputs and are used for achieving specific outcome which is described using the term outputs (Stone et al., 2008: II-2). The inputs employed for creating innovation do not, necessarily, have a physical existence. In practice, these inputs are divided into ‘tangible and intangible’ (Stone et al., 2008: II-2). An indicative list of these inputs or, else, assets, is presented in the table in Figure 1. Figure 1 – Assets, tangible and intangible, used in the creation of innovation (Stone et al., 2008: II-3) An additional characteristic of innovation is its close relationship to knowledge. In fact, it is quite difficult for innovation to be achieved if there is no access to appropriate knowledge (Stone et al., 2008). Still, criticisms have not been avoided. Empirical findings have indicated the non necessity of knowledge, as a prerequisite, for securing the uniqueness of a product/ service; for example, in a relevant survey just 21% of the participants accepted the dependency of innovation on a Research and Development program (Stone et al., 2008). Towards the same direction, the creator of the term innovation, Schumpeter, noted that the term innovation does not always imply ‘new scientific discoveries’ (Urbancova, 2013: 83) but it can also refer to technologies that are known, and already used, and which have been transformed so that they are respond to additional needs, compared to the past (Urbancova, 2013). Despite the relevant oppositions, knowledge remains a key element of innovation. However, in order to respond to its role, in regard to innovation, knowledge needs to be appropriately managed, i.e. gathered, processed and stored (Urbancova, 2013). At this point, the role of leader and of other persons involved in innovation creation is critical (Urbancova, 2013). The commitment of the creators/ supporters of innovation to their role can be secured only if these individuals realize the power of innovation to add value and to create competitive advantage (Urbancova, 2013). In addition to the above, emphasis should be given to the involvement of culture in the promotion of innovation. As all concepts related to economic and social life, innovation needs to be aligned with culture. The relationship between innovation and culture would have two forms: a) As part of business operations innovation is related to the organisational culture (Urbancova, 2013). In a survey developed in 2012 across 109 organisations in Czech Republic participants were asked to state their view of the factors that can influence innovation in their organisation: a quite high percentage of employees highlighted the power of culture to influence the promotion of innovation (Figure 2) Figure 2 – Perceptions of participants on the value of culture for promoting innovation (Urbancova, 2013: 86) b) When referring to innovation as addressing specific needs of consumers then reference should be made to local culture, as related to local ethics and traditions (Urbancova, 2013). This view is based on the following fact: in each market the preferences and expectations of consumers are influenced by their environment; culture is a key element of every society, being involved in all aspects of social and economic life of local people (Urbancova, 2013). Thus, a unique technology would not be able to attract the interest of consumers if it would not reflect local culture, even at a low level. In any case innovation, as described in this section, can be successfully developed and implemented within environments that are supportive to such initiatives. In practice, it has been proved that there are factors that can shape an innovation’s environment making it friendlier towards the specific innovation: these factors are known as ‘innovation process drivers’ (Abidin et al., 2011: 70). Knowledge is one of the most important drivers of this kind; strategic alliances are also drivers that can support the effort of an organisation to promote innovation (Abidin et al., 2011). In the above case, strategic alliances, acting as a supportive network, provide to the organisation the tangible and/ or intangible assets required for the creation of innovative products/ services or processes (Abidin et al., 2011). 2.2 Types of innovation As already noted above, innovation, as a concept, has various descriptions. This means that the role of this concept can be differentiated according to the creator’s plans but also to the environment, economic and social, in which the innovation will be used. This trend is reflected to the establishment of different types of innovation so that its effectiveness is secured. These types can incorporate sub-types depending on the needs addressed each time: a) Technological innovations are the most common type of innovation. This type of innovation shows the knowledge on the elements and the structure of ‘products, services and processes’ (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303). In this context, the technological innovation includes three sub-types of innovation: a1) the product innovation, a term used for showing a product that does not exist in the market, a2) the service innovation, a term showing the uniqueness of the service within its market and a3) the process innovation; the term process can refer to different elements, such as the techniques used in the production process or the strategy used for managing information (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303); b) Market innovations are based on innovative ideas used when arranging the promotion of the product/ service in a particular market or when evaluating the views of consumers either locally or globally (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303); c) Administrative innovations; these are innovations focusing on ‘the structure or the administration of an organisation’ (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006: 303). The innovative strategies related to an organization’s human resources should be characterized as administrative innovations. If these strategies are implemented by employing innovative IT schemes, then the criteria of different types of innovation are met: in the above case, administrative innovations would refer to the unique ideas on which the plan has been based while technological/ process innovation would show the involvement in the whole plan of advanced technology which is new in the market. In the study of Bessen and Maskin (2009) reference is made to the potential of innovation to be secured against external threats, especially imitation. It is noted that even if for each innovation the protection of its patent is critical, there are two types of innovation where the above rule does not apply: these are the cases of ‘sequential innovation and complementary innovation’ (Bessen and Maskin, 2009: 612). A sequential innovation is used as the basis for future innovations while the complementary innovation is used, as a complement, when other innovations are developed (Bessen and Maskin, 2009). In other words, the above two types of innovation does not require strict rules as of their patent protection as in this way the profits expected from the use of these innovations can be extinguished (Bessen and Maskin, 2009). Apart from the types of innovation mentioned above, other types of innovation can appear if focusing on the strategy employed by innovators for enhancing innovation within organisations. For example, there are the ‘proactive innovators’ (Meyer, 2014: 1) who are likely to support the expansion of innovation across the organisation while the ‘strategic innovators’ (Meyer, 2014: 1) who support innovation only in the context of organisational strategy. On the other hand, there are the ‘operational innovators’ (Meyer, 2014: 1) who tend to set barriers in the increase of creativity within their organisation. In the context of this study particular reference should be made to the following types of innovation: the radical innovation and the incremental innovation. The former denotes an innovation that has no similar in the past while the latter emphasizes to the gradual development of innovation, with the support of environment. In other words, radical innovation reflects the uniqueness of the technology used, as of all its aspects (Van Beveren and Vandenbussche, 2010). The case chosen as example for this study, i.e. 3D printing could be characterized as incremental innovation, since the key element of the process, i.e. the printing machine existed in the market at the time point that 3D printing was introduced. As of its other characteristics, the innovation case presented in this study is a case of process innovation, being based on the interaction of a series of rules for supporting the function set by the innovator. 2.3 Theoretical approaches to innovation In the literature, different approaches have been used for describing innovation. A common approach of this kind is the ‘Disruptive Innovation Model of Christensen’ (Yu and Hang, 2009: 3). The specific model, as presented below in Figure 3, is based on the following view: innovative technologies are not necessarily quite popular. In fact, these technologies can be introduced in the market for serving the needs of a market’s segment (Yu and Hang 2009). When having this characteristic, innovative technologies are called disruptive technologies (Yu and Hang 2009). These technologies are ‘inferior to mainstream technologies’ (Yu and Hang, 2009: 2). However, through the years disruptive technologies can expand their customer-base. This phenomenon results in the following case: if mainstream technologies fail to respond to a critical need of their customers then a disruptive technology may appear; if this technology becomes popular then it can ‘replace mainstream technologies, even if the latter have been already improved as of their performance’ (Yu and Hang, 2009: 3). The above event has been described by Christensen as ‘market disruption’ (Yu and Hang, 2009: 3) and it is analytically described in Figure 3. The arrow in blue shows the performance of mainstream technologies while the arrow in green is used for showing the performance of disruptive technology. When the progress of the former is decreased, then the conflict is unavoidable; the red arrow is used for describing this conflict. Figure 3 – Christensen’s theory of Disruptive Innovation (Yu and Hang, 2009: 3) The concept of disruptive innovation, as introduced by Christensen, helps to realize the power of innovation in influencing consumers’ perceptions. Indeed, according to Christensen’s views, innovative technologies which are able to respond fully to specific consumer needs can be welcomed by consumers at such level that even mainstream technologies can suffer important losses, as of their market share. Thus, consumers seem to value innovation under the terms that are expectations, as related to the product/ service involved, are met. From a different point of view, Leger and Swaminathan (2007) noted that innovation is highly depended both on technology and on environment. The specific view is reflected in the ‘Chain-linked Innovation Model’ (Leger and Swaminathan, 2007: 3, Figure 4). In the particular model the ways in which innovation processes are linked are presented; the model also shows the technical aspects/ needs of innovation but also the power of environment to affect innovation process, in regard to all its phases (Figure 4). Figure 4 – The Chain-linked Innovation Model (Leger and Swaminathan, 2007: 3) The graph in Figure 4 shows the relationship between innovation and the environment but also the elements of innovation as a process. A different aspect of innovation is highlighted in the case of Innovation Adoption theory. This theory, which is partially aligned with the Chain-linked model (Figure 4), is based on the following view: an organisation is likely to emphasise on innovation not because of the willingness of its members to promote creativity but rather as an inevitable measure in order to secure its competitiveness (Surry and Farquhar 1997). The specific theoretical approach in regard to innovation promotes the view that each organisation is ‘an open system’ (Surry and Farquhar 1997: 653). 3.0 Innovation in action – 3D Printing 3.1 3D Printing - Overview The success of 3D Printing, as an innovation, has been quite rapid. Despite its rather short history, since 1984 (Grynol, 2014), in the global market, 3D Printing process has reached the level of $2.2 bn, as of market value by 2012 (PWC, 2014). As a process, 3D Printing has been based on the rules of Rapid Prototyping, a process used in 1980s, and still today, for the creation of ‘products’ prototypes’ (Olson, 2013: 35). 3D Printing uses the information provided for producing completed items, i.e. items in their final form without the need for the intervention of any other manufacturing process (Olson, 2013). 3.2 3D Printing as an innovation 3D Printing is based on the following rule: ink is no more the exclusive material that supports printing; rather, using a machine based on 3D printing technology, ‘hundreds of items can be printed using materials such as plastic or metal’ (PWC, 2014: 3). This result is achieved because of the ability of 3D Printing machines to ‘transform digital data to tangible 3D objects’ (Grynol, 2014: 3). Due to its potentials, 3D printing has become quite popular in the manufacturing industry. In fact, it has been proved that a percentage of 66.7% of the industry’s firms have already adopted, at lower or higher level, 3D printing (PWC, 2014: 4). A common 3D Printing device is presented in Figure 5 below. Figure 5 – 3D Printing device (Office of Inspector General, 2014: 2) In order to identify the type of innovation to which 3D Printing is nearer it is necessary to review the rules/ principles on which the specific technology is used. As noted in previous section, 3D Printing is based on the rules of Rapid Prototyping (Olson, 2013). This means that its technology is not new but it is rather based on existing technology for delivering additional benefits. Thus, 3D Printing meets the terms of incremental innovation, as this innovation type has been described in section 2.2 of this study. 3.3 3D Printing – Benefits When organisations try to promote innovation they are likely to emphasise on the improvement of their technology. The high popularity of technology as a tool for enhancing innovation cannot be denied (Mustonen-Ollila and Lyytinen, 2003). However, as all innovation tools, technology is also related to risks (Lin and Chen, 2007). Instability in performance and high exposure to technological failures are the key problems that technology – based innovations are likely to face (Siguaw et al., 2006). However, the relevant threats can be minimized when measures have been taken in advance for increasing the strength of the relevant innovation to unexpected failures (Werle, 2011). 3D Printing, as an innovation process, is highly depended on technology. In this context, it could be expected that consumers and entrepreneurs would face 3D Printing with skepticism, as of the potential risks. In opposition, a trend for increase of the firms that adopt this technology has appeared, as explained in section 3.1. This trend can be explained by referring to the benefits of 3D printing (Figure 6), as an innovation process: a) Limitation of manufacturing costs, b) for firms that are likely to ship their products to their consumers worldwide the costs of transporting goods could be eliminated; 3D Printing machines would be established in local business units so that delivery times and costs are significantly reduced; c) since manufacturing activities would be reduced, the effects of these activities on the environment would be decreased accordingly; d) there would be no need for lengthy inventories; products could be produced at the time that customer sets the order, a fact that could also lead to the significant reduction of costs related to the storage of products (Sissons and Thompson 2012). Figure 6 – Benefits of 3D Printing – as compared to traditional manufacturing (Office of Inspector General, 2014: 6) 4.0 Reflection on findings The review of the literature related to innovation has revealed a series of critical facts: Primarily, innovation has a series of phases. Two seem to be the most important parts of innovation: the identification of the innovative idea and its successful realization (Popadiuk and Choo, 2006). The second part of innovation process can be quite difficult especially when the individuals involved in the relevant plan are not appropriately skilled (Urbancova, 2013). Also, the lack of knowledge or of strategic alliances for supporting innovation can lead the relevant project to failure, either in the short or the long term (Abidin et al, 2011). Another important issue related to innovation is the availability of necessary assets (Stone et al., 2008, see also Figure 1). The heavy dependency of innovation on assets of different kind leads to the following concern: in case that the assets available for supporting innovation are quite limited or inappropriate, then innovation cannot be promoted. This means that innovation can be also related to location: in developed countries where assets necessary to innovation can be easily identified the chances for growth, as achieved through innovation are significantly more. Innovation has been also found to be related to culture (Urbancova, 2013) and to environment (Yu and Hang, 2009). For example, if a disruptive innovation appears the position of a mainstream innovation can be set in risk if the latter is not appropriately supported (Yu and Hang, 2009). In other words, the findings of the literature review developed for this study verify the exposure of innovation to risks. Still, the potential of innovation to secure rapid growth is also revealed. Moreover, the example of 3D printing, as reviewed above, made clear that innovation can result to benefits both for innovators and for the users of innovation. In regard to the findings of the literature review the following fact should be highlighted: theorists and researchers tend to have different view as of the power of innovation to affect social and economic activities of daily life. Still, all of these individuals seem to agree that innovation can result to a series of benefits for all the persons involved but these benefits may take a long time to appear. Another trend related to innovation, as revealed through the literature, is the following: the criteria for deciding the value of an innovative product/ service or process are not standardized. This fact has the following implication: different innovative drivers are likely to be used when having to evaluate innovation. This practice can lead to contradicting views, as of the value of a product/ service or process in terms of innovation. For minimising this risk theorists and researchers that work in this field should emphasize on innovative drivers that are more likely to be objective; knowledge is an important example of this kind. 5.0 Conclusion Innovation has become indispensable part of daily life. The involvement of innovation in social and economic life has been described using various approaches. Moreover, due to the variety of types of innovation it is rather difficult to identify, at least in advance, the appropriate technique for securing the success of an innovative product/ service or process. A similar risk in regard to the management of innovation is the following: innovations tend to have different performance even if they have similar characteristics/ structure. This problem is unavoidable since innovation is highly depended on its environment. Indeed, even if it is carefully organised and supported an innovative product/ service or process can fail in meeting the targets of innovator if one or more innovative drivers are negative. This phenomenon could appear if the conditions in the environment are quite hostile or if the leader of the relevant plan has not the experience/ skills required for responding to the needs of the relevant innovation (Tornatzky and Klein 1982). At the next level, the research developed for this study explained the interaction of innovation with its environment. The role of the internal environment, meaning the elements/ material and the techniques incorporated in an innovative/ product service has also critically discussed. It has been made clear that innovation can result to benefits but such outcome would require standardized social and economic environment, a condition that cannot be easily achieved especially if considering the pressures of the environment for the delay of the process. The case of 3D Printing, as an example of innovation, has highly helped to realize the potential of innovation to provide benefits of different characteristics. For example, 3D printing, since its introduction, has led to the decrease of the power of knowledge, as a factor that can influence innovation. Also, 3D printing has resulted to the significant limitation of time required for the development of manufacturing processes and the increase of involvement of printing, as a process, in daily life. Moreover, the implications of 3D printing, as presented in this study are not able to set barriers to the expansion of this type of innovation, both at local and at global level. In fact, 3D Printing has verified the importance of process innovation in securing rapid growth even in highly competitive markets. 6.0 References Abidin, S., Mokhtar, S. and Yusoff, R., 2011. A Systematic Analysis of Innovation Studies: A Proposed Framework on Relationship Between Innovation Process and Firms Performance. The Asian Journal of Technology Management, 4(2), pp.65-83. Bessen, J. and Maskin, E., 2009. Sequential innovation, patents and imitation. RAND Journal of Economics, 40(4), pp.611-635. Grynol, B., 2014. Disruptive Manufacturing – The effects of 3D printing. Deloitte, pp.1-16. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Leger, A. and Swaminathan, S., 2007. Innovation Theories: Relevance and Implications for Developing Country Innovation. German Institute for Economic Research, Discussion Paper 743, pp.1-38. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Lin, C. and Chen, M., 2007. Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan. Management Research News, 30(2), pp.115-132. Meyer, J., 2014. Strengthening Innovation Capacity through Different Types of Innovation Cultures. ISPIM Americas Innovation Forum, Montreal, Canada, 5-8 October 2014, pp.1-19. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Mustonen-Ollila, E. and Lyytinen, K., 2003. Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using Diffusion of Innovation theory. Info Systems, 13, pp.275-297. Office of Inspector General, 2014. If it Prints, it Ships: 3D Printing and the Postal Service. US Postal Service. White Paper. Report Number: RARC-WP-14-011, pp.1-33. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Olson, R., 2013. 3-D Printing: A Boon or a Bane? The Policy Journal of the Environmental Law Institute, 30(6), pp.34-38. Popadiuk, S. and Choo, C., 2006. Innovation and knowledge creation: How are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management, 26, pp.302-312. PWC, 2014. 3D printing and the new shape of industrial manufacturing. PWC, June 2014, pp.1-19. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Siguaw, J., Simpson, P. and Enz, C., 2006. Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and Integration of Innovation Research. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, pp.556-574. Sissons, A. and Thompson, S., 2012. Three Dimensional Policy – Why Britain needs a policy framework for 3D printing. Big Innovation Centre, pp.1-38. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Stone, A., Rose, S., Lal, B. and Shipp, S., 2008. Measuring Innovation and Intangibles: a Business Perspective. Science and Technology Policy Institute, IDA Document D-3704, pp.1-140. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Surry, D. and Farquhar, J., 1997. Diffusion theory and instructional technology. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, (2) 1. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014] Tornatzky, L. and Klein, K., 1982. Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption- Implementation: a Meta-analysis of Findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-29(1), pp.28-43. Urbancova, H., 2013. Competitive Advantage Achievement through Innovation and Knowledge. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(1), pp.82-96. Van Beveren, I. and Vandenbussche, H., 2010. Product and process innovation and firms’ decision to export. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 13(1), pp.3-24. Werle, R., 2011. Institutional Analysis of Technical Innovation: a Review. Institute For Social Sciences Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies. SOI Discussion Paper 2011-04, pp.1-32. Available at . [Accessed 29 November 2014]. Yu, D. and Hang, C., 2009. A reflective review of Disruptive Innovation Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, pp.1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x Read More