Managing Technological Innovation Research Paper Sample

Answer 1

In the year 1991, Hewlett Packard’s (HP) Disk Memory Division (DMD) launched its first 3.5 inch disk drives loaded with high capacity and high performance which prolifically captured a small, but lucrative portion of the market. On the basis of this technology, the company had some major intentions to go a lot further in the particular competitive sector. Therefore, HP launched the 1.3 inch hard drive; the smallest hard drive the world had ever seen before, named Kitty Hawk in the year 1992. The hard drive had special features of 20 MG of storage capacity and low power consumption. These specific advantages had appeared to be perfect for different types of products like gaming devices, laptops, as well as the mobile market.
Unfortunately, in executing the project HP made too many mistakes. The company had ignored notebook and desktop computers (Murphy and Davis). Whereas, the group pursued the major benefits of mobile computing industry which was, at that point of time new itself. As the mobile computing market was at its beginning stage, the company was very much unsure about the demand of the consumer as well as the time it would have take to gain a market.
Secondly, Disk Memory Division (DMD) had recruited an innovative research firm which was the right approach to go, but the problem aroused when the research firm had developed such high-tech revolutionary products that could not generate demand from the customers at that very point of time. This led to a whole lot of massacre. DMD had started discussion with the HP engineers to somehow generate the demand and usage of the product. That complicated the scenario and the results became worst.
Another mistake of the execution was the misunderstanding of the market’s requirements at that very moment. DMD had no idea that the specific disruptive technology probably would have needed more time to develop the market demand. The technology which was invented by the group was way ahead of time and it had to be adjusted to fit the requirement of the market need. But in spite of doing that the group preferred to shut down the project altogether. For a few instances, some of the non-traditional customers showed their interest in Kitty Hawk but the companies did not possess the resources to invest in the project for a longer period of time.
However, the biggest mistake which was made by DMD was the group had failed to set its goal for the specific disruptive technology (Pearson). Probably without understanding the market potentiality or demand of the consumers, the group had set a target of $ 100 million revenue in less than 24 months at a revenue growth of 35 percent. The goal was too big without even knowing what the final product would look like. That put immense pressure on DMD to achieve its prolific goal. When the product was finally revealed the impact was not up to the marks. Without understanding the market the company had made some sort of futuristic product that was not even necessary for the consumers during that point in time. In a search for a better product, the team had found them with a drive that was almost not fit for the notebook and desktop market.

Answer 2

The mistakes made by Disk Memory Division (DMD) group could be considered as rational decisions. Indeed these were mistakes to quite some extent but few of those might be taken under consideration as those were not intended by the group. Some circumstantial issues had made the company shut down the project. By the help of some theories, it can be explained to a certain extent.
As DMD intended to initiate a whole new set of innovative product through the Kitty Hawk Project, the group must have possessed a vision to launch a new product in the market that could prove to be time consuming. New products possibly take time to develop to find potential growth in the traditional market as S-Curve theory suggests. With time, the development and growth of a product increase dramatically. But in case of the Kitty Hawk Project, although the time went by, the market of the hard drive had not improved. Therefore, the S- curve shown flattens graph.
If we can discuss the decision made by DMD through disruptive technology theory, we can achieve a clearer view. As the theory defines, company had thought to change the need for the market by its new set of innovation and is expected to alter the demand of the consumers. But this strategy did not work out. Although the drive made by DMD, had been able to attract some of the non-traditional investors, it also did not work out as the companies had limited resources to promote new demand for this technology (Preece). The calculation for disruptive technology was also not gone in favor of the company. They would have to wait for a long time to get a perfect set of buyers for the product as the mobile computing technology was at its initial stages.
The first mover advantage theory is also supporting the decisions made by the company in favor of the research work. As the company was intended to promote a new product which would help the company to achieve maximum portion of the market, as well as the share, it had told the research company to invent a new sort of smaller drive that would be marketed globally. At that point of time, the company was facing market competition against other companies like IBM. Therefore, according to strategy Spenner, the head of the project had told his team to do as per requirement. But they had achieved something more advance to fit for the cause. Though the company tried to make the demand but the plan did not work too. It should not be forgotten that the research work was not failed; actually it invented something more interesting for futuristic prospects. That was one of the successes of the research work as well as the decision making of the team.
The device that DMD team made was mere 1.3 inch disk with powerful storage capacity. This design was certainly impressive for a competitive market as technology continued to surprise everyone to save more and more space. Additionally, it can be said that if DMD would have generated the product demand according to the consumers, then it would have brought a major revolution in the market by its shape, size, and capability.
After analyzing the decisions made by DMD, it can easily be concluded that though the Kitty Hawk Project was marked as a failure but, in reality it had brought a lot of positivity for the future technology. It is also essential to understand the importance of demand that is prolifically related to the market. To make a successful project an organization should be more professional to analyze the market demand and the product in making.

References

Murphy, John W., and Donald D. Davis. 'Managing Technological Innovation'. Contemporary Sociology 16.6 (1987): 811. Web.
Pearson, A.W. 'Managing Technological Innovation'. Long Range Planning 7.5 (1974): 66-67. Web.
Preece, David. 'Managing Technological Innovation'. Technovation 21.7 (2001): 463. Web.