The reconfiguration of existing product technology

Clark simon Harvard University This conventional paper demonstrates the fact that traditional categorization ot itoovation as either incremental or perhaps radical is usually incomplete and potentially deceiving and does not consideration or the at times disastrous results on industry incumbents of seemingly minor improvements in technological products. We analyze such enhancements more strongly and, differentiating betwbetween74,? the components of a item and the methods they are integrated into the system this provides the product structure, define all of them as improvements that replace the architecture of any product without changing it is components.

We all show that architectural innovations destroy the usefulness with the architectural understanding of established firms, and that as architectural know-how tends to become mbedembeddedthe composition and information-processing procedures of established agencies, this break down is difficult for companies to recognize and hard to fix. Architectural advancement therefore gives established organizations with subtle challenges that may have significant competitive significance.

We demonstrate the principles explanatory pressure through an empirical study in the semiconductor photphotomicrographgnment equipment market, which has skilled a number of new innovations. at the ThE differentiation between refining and enhancing an existing esigsign introducing a new concept that departs in a significant way from previous practice is one of the central thoughts in the existing literature upon technical creativity (Mansfield, 1968, MochMooch Frein. 1977, Freeman, 1982).

Incremental innovation presents relatively minimal changes to the existing product, intrusions the potential of the established design and style. and Underordnet reinforces the dominance of established firms (Nelson and Winter. 1982, EttlTitleidges. and AndeCoffee84, Dewar and Dutton. 1986, TushDustman Anderson. 1986). Although it draws from simply no dramatically new science. it oIten calls for considerable skill and genius and. observar Evere, features very significant economic consequences (Hollander. 1965). Radical advancement, in contrast. h based on a unique set of executive and scientific principles and often opens up whole new markets and potential applications (DessDoes Beard, 1984, EttlTitleidges. and AndeCoffee84, Dewar and Dutton. 1986). Radical innovation often makes great problems for founded firms (Cooper and scheascended76, Daft, 1982, RothRetell? six, TushDustman Anderson. 1986) and is the basis for the effective entry of recent firms or use the redefinition of your industry. This research was supported by the Division ot Rtoearch Harvard Business College.

Their support is gratefully acknowledged. We would like to give thanks to DataDatasets VLSIVEILSearch Inc for generous authorization to use all their published info. the Theffs at Rule. GCA. CAkoNixonrkPerkinger and UltrAltercated And those individuals involved with photphotomicrographgnment technology who gave so generously of time. We would also like to appreciate the publishers of this Diary and 3 anonymous gurus who offered us many useful comments. Any errors or omissions continue to be entirely our responsibility.

Significant and gradual innovations include such different competitive outcomes ecaucausey require quite different organizational capabilities. Organizational capabilities are difficult to create and expensive to adjust (Nelson and Winter season, 1982, HannHannah Freeman, 1984). Incremental innovation reinforces the capabilities of established businesses, while revolutionary innovation pushes them to ask a new group of questions. to dTow on new technological and industrial skills. and Andemploy new problem-solving techniques (Burns and Stalker, 1966, HageWage0, EttlTitleidges. and AndeCoffee84, TushDustman Anderson. 1986). 1990 by Cornell University. 0001-8392190/3501-0009/$1. 00. /Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1990): 9-30 The distinction between radical and incremental creativity has made important insights, but it is usually fundamentally imperfect. There is growing evidence that we now have numerous technological innovations that involve obviously modest becomes the existing technology but that have quite dramatic competitive effects (Clark, 1987).

The case of Xerox and small copiers and the circumstance of RCA and the American radio recipient market will be two examples. Xerox, the pioneer of plain-paper copiers, was presented in the mid-1970assesh competitors supplying copiers that have been uch suchller and more reliable than the classic product. The brand new products necessary little fresh scientific or perhaps engineering expertise, but although Xerox got invented the core solutions and had enormous experience in the market, it took the company almost 8-10 years of problems and fake starts to bring in a competitive product in the market.

In that time Xerox misplaced half of the market share and suffered significant financial problems (Clark, 1987). In the mid-1950assesineers at RCAArcsporate research and development middle developed a prototype of the portable, transistorized radio recipient. The new merchandise used technology in which RCA was completed (transistors, the airwaves circuits, audio system, tuning devices). but Nevertheless saw very little reason to pursue such an apparently home technology.

In comparison, Sony, a little, relatively new firm, used the small transistorized car radio to gain entrance into the U. S. markMarketen after SonySonnyscess was apparent, RCA remained a follower in the market as Sony presented successive types with better sound quality and FM capability. The irony of the situation had not been lost around the RD technicians: for many years SonySonnysios were produced with technology licensed via RCA, but RCA had great problems matching SonySonnysduct in the marketplace (Clark, 1987).

Existing models that rely on the simple distinction among radical and incremental advancement provide very little insight into why such obviously minor or straightforward innovations should have these kinds of consequences. With this paper, we develop and apply a model that grew out of research in the automotive, equipment tool, and ceramics industrial sectors that helps to clarify how small innovations can easily have great competitive outcomes. CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION Component and Architectural Understanding In before drafts on this paper we referred o this type of creativity as generational. We are indebted to Professor Michael TushDustman his advice of the term architectural. Through this paper, all of us focus on the challenge of product development, taking since the unit of analysis a produced product sold to an end consumer and designed, engineered, and manufactured by just one product-development business. We establish innovations that change the manner in which the components of the product will be linked collectively, while departing the core design principles (and therefore the basic understanding underlying the components) unblemished, as architectural innovation. This can be a kind of advancement that onfrunfrostedox and RCA. It destroys the convenience of a firms architectural knowledge but maintains the effectiveness of the knowledge about the items components. 10/Asa, Asrch 1990 Architectural Innovation This difference between the product as a whole- the system-and the product in its parts-the compcomponentsong history in the design literature (MarpMarbles61, Alexander, 1964). For instance , a room enthusiasts major elements include the cutting tool, the electric motor that hard drives it, the blade protect, the control system, as well as the mechanical real estate.

The overall buildings of the merchandise lays away how the components will work with each other. Taken collectively, a golden skin tone architecture and its components build a system tor torting atmosphere in a room. A component is definitely defined in this article as a bodily distinct portion of the product that embodies a core style concept (Clark, 1985) and performs a well-defined function. In the lover, a particular motor is a component of the design that delivers power to turn the fan. There are numerous design principles one could use to deliver electrical power.

The choice of one of them-the decision to use a power motor, for example , establishes a core notion of the design. The actual component-the electric powered motor-is then the physical execution of this design concept. The distinction between your product as being a system plus the product being a set of parts underscores the idea that successful product development requires two types of knowledge. Initially, it requires component knowledge, or perhaps knowledge about each one of the core design and style concepts plus the way in which they can be implemented in a particular part.

Second, it needs architectural know-how or information about the ways in which the components are integrated and linked with each other into a logical whole. The distinction among architectural and component understanding, or involving the components themselves nd tND links together, is a way to obtain insight into the ways in which innovations differ from one another. Types of Technological Change The notion that we now have different kinds of innovation, with different competitive effects, has become an important motif in the materials on technological innovation since SchuSchumacher42).

Following SchuSummersetshasis on imaginative destruction, the literature offers characterized different kinds of innovations regarding their effect on the established capabilities in the firm. This idea is used in Number 1, which usually classifies enhancements along two dimensions. The horizontal imenemissiontures an innovative developments impact on elements, while the vertical captures its impact on the linkages between components. 2 There are, naturally , other ways to characterize different types of innovation.

Although given the focus here on innovation and the advancement new products, the framework outlined in Determine 1 is useful because it is targeted on the impact of your innovation around the usefulness of the existing executive and component knowledge of the firm. 2 We are indebted to one of the anonymous ASQ ASSiewers pertaining to the recommendation that we make use of this matrix. Presented in this way, significant and gradual innovation will be xtreextrements along both sizes.