CDMA not a "disruptive tech" in CC sense
Jim
FWIW I offer my interpretation of C Christensen's work to say that CDMA is not a "disruptive tech" in the sense that he defines that term. For CC disruptive techs are techs which appear to have less of each of the valued characteristics of products sold by the major producers in a market; however, the disruptive tech is cheap and usually simple and cheap. For example, the development of the hydraulic power shovel was in its first iteration slower, able to handle less weight so do less work. The customers didn't want it; they wanted more capacity and more productivity. But it was cheap to build and cheap to maintain. by 3G of hydraulic shovels, it had displaced the market share of the cable-pulley shovels. They were buggy whips.
He is interested in disruptive tech bc the existing producers have such difficulty defending against tech developments which in their first appearance are inferior in each of the criteria for value/selection by customers (except price). Typically they expand the market by attracting new users who are price sensitive and then improve the product and improve it again.
Evolutionary techonolgy, on the other hand, is technology which offers improved product characteristics. In most of the cases he analyszes, evolutionary tech comes from the existing dominant producers in the market. Sometimes they have to bet the company on the evolutionary tech but it is clear that it has characteristics their customers want. Intel bet the company on integrated circuits and bailed out of the memory chip business to bet the company on IC's. If they could get quality and productions problems under control, this was a product which their customers wanted for every criterion.
The standards conflict in wireless displays a quite different set of issues and competitive repsonses, IMO, from disruptive technologies. CDMA was obviously an evolutionary tech; in 1991 the major producers should have accepted the invitation of QCOM to deal, to negotiate licenses and move the wireless tech up the curve in capacity, data rate, s/n improvement. It was clearly evolutionary but the Big Guys thought they could stamp QCOM like an ant at the picnic. Bad business judgment by producers accustomed to oligopoly conditions in market for equipment manufacture and telecom carrier businesses made a huge misjudgment.
This is an interesting business case, but IMO it comes under the historic business blunder category. Disruptive techs are much more ironic and perverse because the dominant companies, as CC shows so persuasively in many industries in is book, correctly made the decision to withhold investment in the new tech and still ended up on the ash heap. Listening to their customers, analyzing the new tech, they made decisions to withhold investment bc it delivered less in every measure of customer value (except price).
Digital telecom was evolutionary from analog. MOT made a business blunder in failing to invest and develop digital which would displace their analog products. In the last lap of the race, MOT rushed a whole bunch of (mostly spurious) patents for digital into the queue at the Patent Office and that got them into the Gang of Five (then Six) for the patent pool which controlled GSM. MOT and ERICY and NOK made a business blunder in not buying off QCOM when it would have been real cheap bc the CDMA developments, although hugely difficult to bring to commercial reality from 1991, were obviously evolutionary in every criterion which would define 3G.
Disruptive techonolgy is about fate in the Greek sense; the CDMA story is about hubris in the Greek sense.
Just my pastiche on a very complicated business parable; others may place arrows in their bows and take aim at my presumption.
propitious |
