Technological gaps and their bridging. Technology Gap Management Technology Gap

Since the beginning of the 1980s, the main object of management in the world industry has been the choice of a strategy in the field of introducing new technologies. As soon as one technology in the industry is replaced by another, the problem of their correlation becomes for the enterprise a matter of the most important strategic choice: keep(and for how long?) traditional technology, due to which part of the manufactured products turns out to be costly and obsolete, or cross over to a new one.

At the level of enterprise management, an approach to assessing the applied technology and determining the moment when it is necessary to invest in the development and implementation of a new one is recommended. It is based on building a relationship between the cost of improving a process or product and the results obtained. It is depicted as a logistic S - shaped curve. The results do not mean profit or sales, but indicators characterizing the level of technology parameters and product quality. The curve is called S-shaped because when plotting the results on a graph, they usually get a curved line, reminiscent of the letter S, but elongated to the right at the top and left at the bottom. parts.

This dependence reflects the inception, spasmodic growth and gradual achievement of the stage of maturity of a technological process or product. The initial investment in technology (product) development yields very little results. Then, as key knowledge is accumulated and utilized, results improve rapidly. And finally, there comes a point when the technical capabilities of the technology have been exhausted and progress in this area becomes more difficult and expensive, and additional investments only slightly improve the results (peak of the S-shaped curve). This is due to the fact that technologies have their limits, determined either by the life limit of one or more of their constituent elements, or, which happens more often, all at once. The proximity to this limit means that all existing opportunities for improvement have been exhausted and further improvement in this area becomes burdensome, since the costs associated with it grow at a faster rate than the return on them. This limit is determined by the natural laws on which the technology is based.

The ability of managers to recognize the limits of the technologies used is critical because it determines the success or failure of the company, because the limit is the most reliable key to identifying when to start developing a new technology. For example, the existence of a limit for printing on paper as a technology for transferring information is predetermined by the appearance electronic technology, with the help of which in the future it is possible to transfer information more efficiently and at lower costs.

The periods of transition from one group of products or processes to another are called technology breaks. There is a gap between the S-shaped curves due to the formation of a new S-shaped curve, but not on the basis of the same knowledge that underlies the old curve, but on the basis of completely new knowledge. For example, the transition from vacuum tubes to semiconductors, from propeller-driven aircraft to jet aircraft, from thermal power plants to nuclear power plants, from magnetic tape to CDs, etc. -all these are examples of overcoming technological gaps. And all of them allow us to squeeze out the industry leaders.

If the limit is reached, a "technological gap" sets in and further progress becomes impossible. To overcome it, it is necessary to move to new technologies, products (services). This requires significant costs, often in many ways exceeding the costs of ongoing improvement of production, and can take a long time.

The reached limit of any technology does not mean the absence of another that can more effectively solve consumer problems. The new technology has its own S-shaped curve. The gap between the two curves represents the technology gap, where one technology replaces the other.

The difficulties of comprehending the impending limit of the existing technology and making a decision about the transition to a new one are that, as a rule, the transition to a new technology seems to be less economical than keeping the old one.

Organizations that are unwilling or unable to make large investments try to delay this moment in every possible way, believing that they know well the needs of customers, the capabilities of competitors, the laws of technology evolution, and therefore will be able to react to the situation at the right time and maneuver as necessary.

However, in the conditions of the revolutionary development of technology and technology, maneuver can only gain time, but not win, and underestimating this can lead to serious difficulties for the organization. It is also not always possible to correctly determine the moment of the onset of a technological gap, since most often they try to do this on the basis of economic indicators that do not adequately reflect the state of technology.

For those who do not grasp the idea of ​​the S-curve limit, change is caught off guard by sneaking up behind them. This happens so often and inevitably that some authors call the S-curve of the blindness curve.

Moving closer to the breaking point requires an organization to take action to renew its core business. But even if things are going well and the organization is on the rise, it still needs to be updated if it wants to achieve or maintain a leading position in its field. Therefore, the update process is essentially continuous and is one of the most important objects of management.

S-curves almost invariably go in pairs. The gap between a pair of curves is the gap within which one technology replaces another. This was the case when semiconductors replaced vacuum tubes. In fact, one single technology is rarely able to satisfy all consumer needs. There are almost always competing technologies, each with its own S-curve. Companies that have learned to bridge technology gaps are investing in research, including fundamental research, so that they know where they are on the corresponding S-curves and what to expect in the future.

Bridging technological gaps has occurred frequently in history, but economists are convinced that waves of major innovations associated with bridging technological gaps have occurred more or less regularly over the past 250 years - in about 50-year cycles. In the first few years of the cycle, new technological potential is accumulated. Then there comes a period when far-reaching innovations are gaining in strength, and then, in the course of their commercial exploitation, the pace of events gradually slows down.

This pattern was formulated by the Russian economist N. Kondratyev. In 1930 he was supported by the German economist I. Schumpeter. He showed that the first wave lasted from 1790 to 1840. and it was based mainly on new technologies in the textile industry, using the possibilities of coal and steam energy. The second wave covered the years 1840-1890. and is directly related to development railway transport and the mechanization of production. The third wave (1890-1940) was based on electricity, chemical advances and engines internal combustion... The current fourth wave (from the 1940s to the 1990s) is based on electronics, but the pace of innovation may not stop as it did between previous cycles. American economist K. Freeman believes that biotechnology will become at least part of the base of the fifth Kondratyev wave, which may have already begun.

In the face of current and future changes, leaders have a responsibility to rethink their attitudes toward technology and develop approaches that help bridge technology gaps during periods of surge in innovation.

The process of technological development of the enterprise is associated with the definition of the basic technology, which is a long period becomes the basis and is improved within the framework of technical policy. The choice of the basic technology has a decisive impact on the capabilities and nature of the technical development of the enterprise. That is, the subsequent technological development within the strategic period is carried out using the basic technology.

Under these conditions, the evolutionary introduction of technological innovations leads to the gradual depletion of the potential of the basic technology. At the same time, it is extremely important to predict as accurately as possible the technological and time limits of the use of the basic technology.

The depletion of the potential of the basic technology is associated with the concept tipping point and the emergence technological gap. During this period, the old basic technology is replaced by a qualitatively new one, which determines the general direction of development of technical policy in this area for the next period.

At the same time, the new basic technology can radically change the situation not only within the enterprise, but also in the market almost instantly.

Opportunities and limits of use of any basic technology are traditionally described by a 5-shaped curve (Fig. 7.2).

Rice. 7.2.

The 5-shaped curve in the "Costs-Result" coordinate system reflects the process of technology development and has three characteristic sections: a section of technology training, a section of increased technology efficiency and a section of its saturation.

On training area there is an accumulation of experience in the practical use of a new technological idea. During the period of technology training, the S-shaped curve has a gentle character - the resources invested in product development do not yet give a tangible return. Researchers implementing a technological idea periodically face new technological difficulties, overcoming which allows them to realize the basic part of the potential of a new technology.

Thus, a technological concept (idea) is born on the training site, the selected technology is then debugged, mastered by manufacturers, after which the technology goes into a period of increased efficiency.

On the high-impact area technology, when the main technological problems are solved, there is an active use of new technology in production process... Innovators using a new core technology gain market advantage, since any other successor enterprise, in order to catch up with the innovators, will have to take the same technology into service and go through a training section. On the one hand, a follower venture can complete the learning curve faster than a pioneering innovator. But, on the other hand, during the training of a follower enterprise, an innovative enterprise is able to go much further in its technological research.

In the area of ​​increased technology efficiency, additional investments in the development of the basic technology provide a significant improvement in the consumer properties of the product while simultaneously rationalizing the costs of its production.

However, for any technology in the high-yield area, there comes a time when additional investment no longer leads to significant success. New limitations to the technology are emerging, demonstrating the depletion of its potential. The increase in the rate of growth of costs for technology development against the background of the growth rate of results (see Fig. 7.2) ultimately leads the line of technology development to the saturation point.

Pa saturation section the basic technology is faced with factors that fundamentally limit the growth of further results from its use (even if improved) within the framework of the chosen concept. This forces innovative enterprises to change their concept, actively developing qualitatively new technologies at a new level.

The transition from some basic technologies to others with a higher potential is accompanied by technological breaks (Fig. 7.3). In the area of ​​the technological gap, a new one begins to appear above the old S-shaped curve, based on a completely new type of knowledge.

When technological change is imminent, it is very important to understand which part of the S-curve corresponds to the current use of the technology. At the same time, the moment of transition to a new technology is largely determined by

Rice . 7.3.

ratio economic efficiency old and new technologies according to the corresponding S-shaped curves in different sections (Fig. 7 .4).

Rice . 7.4.

The technology gap intensifies competition between innovators seeking to achieve success through the introduction of qualitatively new technologies (strategy of technological attacks), and conservatives seeking to maximize on old technologies (defensive strategy). Such competition often goes beyond technology rivalry. Here, a lot is decided by a set of levers of influence inherent, first of all, to large companies.

The strategic rule for implementing the technology policy of long-lived companies is formulated simply: the best defense is attack (attack). However, such a rule, despite its simplicity, is very effective if you know exactly where the enterprise is on the S-curve and what decisions need to be made.

Often the advantage in technological attacks is gained by small businesses... And it's not just their relatively high mobility, but also the fact that technology attacks often go unnoticed by industry leaders. Based on the high economic performance in previous periods, large industry leaders often lag behind in responding to technology attacks from "babies". Bridging technological gaps is often associated with changes in the distribution of manufacturers' positions in the market.

Thus, the S-shaped curve helps to anticipate the challenges of scientific and technological progress and timely respond to changing consumer demands by overcoming the technological limits of the old basic technology by entering a qualitatively new one. To solve this problem, the enterprise must constantly conduct a multidimensional analysis as production activities firms and other market participants.

Scientific and technical progress

INTRODUCTION

Mark D. Diebner

Much is said about the importance of scientific and technological progress (STP) for the activities of companies and the state, but specific measures in this direction are carried out much less often. V real life the ability to compete in the global economy depends on the availability of advantages over competitors, and this, in turn, is built on the basis of modern technology.

The United States is leading the way in many areas of basic university research. Yet fundamental science discoveries do not guarantee future return on investment.

The company must introduce new technologies and, using them, produce products for the market. Having won a place among competitors, the company must remain at the level of modern technology, manufacture products and successfully sell them.

Not everyone is guided by these basic principles intuitively - a lot needs to be learned. However, not everyone has the necessary training in the management of scientific and technological progress. Very few business schools include NTP management as a required course, and other schools do not even offer it as a faculty.

Mark D. Diebner,PhD, Director of the Institute for Biotechnology Information, located in the Research Triangle Park. He is also Adjunct Professor in Technology and Entrepreneurship Management at Duke University's Fukua School of Business.

tatively. Line managers are not always easy to cope with issues of management of NTO. STP management does not happen by itself. It must be “embedded” in the company's strategy. This can be challenging if the company is focused on short-term results, value reduction and maintains accounting records to show quarterly earnings. Scientific and technological advances do not occur regularly, at regular intervals. Sometimes it can take several years for a company to start making a profit. R&D is often not culturally well-suited to the corporate culture and is an expense that can be easily “cut off” from the budget, as these costs do not lead to short-term results.

The science of managing scientific and technological progress is mastered with difficulty; there are still more questions than answers in this area. Each technology has its own development cycle, many alternative approaches, and varying degrees of government control or regulation. This is compounded by the fact that technology fits differently into different corporate cultures.

It is necessary, however, to be aware of the issues that need to be reflected in the strategic planning of companies. Understanding of the foundations of the development of new technologies, limited and

the discontinuous nature of this development, as well as how to increase the innovativeness of the activities of research units, can provide an organization with valuable experience in achieving success in competition.

The materials presented in the chapters of this section will prompt the reader to reflect on many questions. These reflections, in turn, can lead to an analysis of the strong and weaknesses companies in the field of management. Does your company have a technical policy? If so, does it apply to other areas of the company? Does it enable the company to engage in long-term R&D projects? Is there a contact between R&D, marketing and production departments ^ Is the R&D team aware of its place in the company's activities? Is the company creating a climate conducive to innovation? Does the company have information about world scientific discoveries? Is the company taking advantage of government research orders “Is the company using strategic alliances with other companies and university research talent to increase the return on every dollar invested in R&D? Is the company able to compete globally?

To a large extent, success depends on thoughtful answers to these questions. V this section the reader will find information that will help him get an overall picture of these responses.

FIRMS READINESS TO

TECHNOLOGICAL

CHANGES

Richard N. Foster, McKinsey & Company

On Friday, December 13, 1907, at dawn, when the Thomas W. Lau-Son ran into rocks and sank in the English Channel, the era of commercial sailing ended. This vessel, capable of 22 knots per hour in good winds, was built to withstand the competition of steamers, which were gaining an increasing share of the freight traffic. But in order to achieve greater speed from the sailing vessel, the designer was forced to sacrifice its maneuverability. The Lawson, with seven masts and 404 feet in length, was so bulky that in a gale wind, its helmsman could not avoid hitting pitfalls. After that, no one tried to design faster sailing ships for the transport of goods. V sea ​​shipping steamships began to play the dominant role. The Fall River Ship and End-Jin Building, which built Lawson, was forced to switch to a different business.

In 1947, Procter & Gamble introduced the first synthetic Tide laundry detergent to the market. It contains phosphate compounds

cleaning properties that are more powerful than traditional natural detergents. Tide took the lead, leaving behind its main competitor, Leaver Brothers.

In May 1971, Dayton, Ohio-based National Cash Register announced that it was writing off $ 140 million worth of new cash registers due to their inability to sell. She fired thousands of workers and the managing director shortly thereafter. Over the next four years, the price of one share of the company fell from $ 45 to $ 14. Why did this happen? Electromechanical devices produced by the company could not compete with new electronic models of such devices, the production of which was cheaper, they were easier to use and more reliable.

On the example of these and hundreds of other companies that were leaders in their industries, they suddenly saw their sustainable well-being disappear under the onslaught of technological progress. They failed to anticipate radical shifts in technology, to assess their

investigate and take timely action to maintain leadership.

Such failures are explained by the basic premise from which leaders proceed when managing their companies: tomorrow will be about the same as today. Without this confidence, it would have been impossible for them to efficiently manage production. But in the development and implementation of a company's strategy, this premise is fatal. The phenomenon of technological change and its results - commercial innovation and competition - mean that the strategies of almost all companies, be it shipbuilding, manufacturing of cash registers or manufacturing of washing powder, must assume that tomorrow will ultimately be completely different than today. that is, the process will be interrupted - there will be a break in technological continuity. And in most cases, by the time shifts in established technological processes begin to have a visible impact on the market, the pace of this offensive will be so fast that only those who are best prepared for this attack can withstand it.

Unlike legions of company victims who have been leaders in their industries for many years - ABM, Hewlett-Packard, Corning, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, that shifts in technological processes are inevitable, that they are manageable and vital to improve shareholder wealth. They also believe that the “offensive”, that is, innovators who exploit the disruption of technological continuity and seek to find a balance between the “offensive” attitude and active defense of their existing business, will ultimately win.

S-CURVE

Understanding the dynamics of competition, which leads some companies to collapse, and gives others the opportunity to remain leaders in their industries for a long time, implies mastering three basic principles: the S-curve, the gap in the technological chain, and the benefits

entities that have "advancing". Two other ideas are based on the S-curve principle. The curve graphically represents the relationship between the cumulative effort to improve a product or process and the productivity achieved through investment (Figure 7-1). Moving forward is slow at first. while scientists looking for a solution to the problem. Then, when the right solution is found and put in the right place, the pace of progress increases dramatically. Over time, the pace slows down again as each new increase in productivity becomes more difficult and expensive. Despite the effort sailing ships do not swim much faster, natural detergents do not make laundry cleaner, and electromechanical cash registers do not become much cheaper (to manufacture and operate).

Rice. 7-1. S-curve

The S-curve (also called the logistics curve or the Gompertz curve) takes shape depending on the teaching methods and physical capabilities of people. In order to discover the unknown, people conduct experiments in the same way that children, when learning to ride a bicycle, try different combinations of pedaling, turning the steering wheel, and moving weight. With each experiment, the amount of knowledge increases, but the process, unfortunately, remains ineffective. This is why the bottom of the curve is so flat.

When basic principles are identified through trial and error, the effectiveness of training increases dramatically. Reb-

nok, who already knows how to balance on a bicycle, very quickly comprehends the art of riding in a spiral on high speeds climbing steep slopes and overcoming obstacles. Every hour that he devotes to driving gives a result in the form of more high level productivity, so the curve becomes steeper.

Then the cyclist discovers physical limitations - the mechanical performance of the bicycle decreases and the physiological performance of the cyclist. Additional efforts - using thinner tires, improving the physiological state of a person - can help, but only slightly. The results from investments made during the training period diminish and the S-curve becomes flat again. The only way a person can achieve much greater success is to bypass the physical boundaries of cycling (that is, to go down to the beginning of a new S-curve) by investing in a new technology, such as a car.

Scientists and engineers experiment, overcoming difficulties with varying success, begin to move forward noticeably faster, as soon as they acquire fundamental knowledge, but in the end they run into the physical limits of nature. There. where this has not yet happened, there remains room for efficiency gains. For example, the development of the process of creating an artificial heart is proceeding at a rather rapid pace, since the technologies on which it depends have not yet reached physical limits. It took a competing firm more than ten years to develop an artificial heart that could support a patient's life for up to four weeks; the result of the work of the other ten years was a device that kept a person alive for sixteen weeks; the next third ten years allowed the patient to live thirty weeks, that is, to achieve an efficiency eight times greater than in the first ten years.

The exact opposite happens with mechanical watch... Between 1700 and 1850, watchcase thickness decreased from 1 "/ 2" to about

measured "/ 4". Most of the models of modern wrist watch has about the same thickness. In fact, watchmakers reached the physical limit of fineness 150 years ago and have since focused on other performance parameters such as reliability, ease of use and cost.

When constructing an S-curve related to technology, the question arises as to the level and time of investment in R&D. Failure to accelerate the pace of improvement at the beginning of the curve can lead to funding cuts or early abandonment of new technology. And, conversely, additional investment may be required due to overestimated preliminary estimates of the possible rate of development. new products or because of a failure to take into account the efforts of other technological actors in the industry who generate knowledge available to those who wish to acquire it. The steeper curve signals that an investment race has begun among competitors, as every extra dollar invested in a given technology has the potential to dramatically improve product performance. The maturing S-curve is especially important for companies that are closely associated with this technology. In almost all cases, companies are investing more than necessary due to the inertia of R&D programs: they are easier to open than to close. If the steep curve begins to flatten out, it is time to change the direction of efforts to improve a product or process, paying attention to other parameters, for example, strive to make watches more reliable, not thinner.

GAP IN TECHNOLOGICAL CONTINUITY

Plotting a single S-curve does not answer the constantly arising strategic questions: Which technology should be preferred? Sails or steam energy? Electromechanical or electronic cash register

ratam? Natural or Artificial Detergents? To get answers to these and other similar questions, it is necessary to construct a whole family of S-curves that show the approximation of the discontinuity.

Although the market is usually dominated by a single technology, it rarely fully and best meets all of the customer's requirements. There are almost always competing technologies, each with its own S-curve. It often happens that several new technologies are combined to replace the old technology. Take, for example, how CD and digital audio tape players compete with traditional cassette and record players for a fraction. domestic market stereo equipment. The discontinuity is represented at the intersection of the S-curves of old and new technologies, where one technology replaces another and fulfills an order for a competing product.

The technology can come in several forms. In some cases, it is specific process that produces a specific product.

Or it could be the process of making several types of products. Considering services or products that are based on thousands of technologies, such as air travel or automobiles, only one or a few technologies are most significant at any given time. It is she or they who have the greatest impact on the functioning of a given product and should be considered.

The history of the tire cord illustrates the possibilities of using the S-curve and the importance of understanding discontinuity as a result of innovation (Figure 7-2). Cord performance parameters are complex as they include factors such as cord strength, heat resistance and fatigue. The combination of these factors gives the tires the properties buyers are interested in - smooth ride, durability, tear protection, and also cheapness. The diagram recreates efficiency parameters that meet customer requirements (pressure maintenance) and meet technical factors (e.g. stability

fatigue resistance), which are weighed by value criteria according to customer requirements. In this case, the aggregate efficiency parameter correlates with the optimal properties of cotton, since it was he who served as the material for the first samples of tire cord.

As with all S-curves, the cumulative R&D effort is measured in terms of dollars invested. Efforts change over time as different companies start and stop R&D programs and finance them at different levels. Since most companies do not keep track of their efforts that have been invested in a particular technology, they often try to plot the curve of technological progress in relation to time and find that the predictions do not come true. The problem here is not the difficulty of predicting technological progress, since we have become convinced of the relative stability of the S-curve, but rather the inability to monitor and predict the investments of all the largest players in the industry. To construct a family of S-curves, it is usually necessary to reconstruct and predict the efforts of the major players in a given industry in terms of their R&D expenditures, or more directly, such as the number of years spent developing a particular technology.

The first synthetic material for cord was viscose, the leaders of which were American Viscose and DuPont. Compared to cotton, it had greater strength and made it possible to produce thinner tires. In addition, viscose is not subject to decay, so the tires last longer. The first $ 65 million that American Viscose, DuPont and others spent on viscose was seven times more profitable than cotton. The reign of viscose began in the market.

DuPont's signature cord, nylon, has slightly better performance than viscose and has become the second dominant synthetic material.

tire cord. The first $ 30 million DuPont spent on nylon was far more efficient than an investment in rayon and eight times more efficient than cotton.

Then polyester came along and there was a radical shift in the cord manufacturing process. Polyester, which was produced in part by American Viscose and Cilanis, had a huge advantage over nylon and a steeper S-curve from the start. The first $ 50 million spent on improving the quality of polyester yielded twice the benefit of nylon and sixteen times that of cotton.

The competitive implications of this shift were severe. Patents hindered the further development of nylon at American Viscose, so it continued to develop viscose and polyester, producing viscose almost exclusively. Some time after the market share of viscose dropped to 20%, and despite claims from tire manufacturers that polyester was the material for the tire cord of the future, American Viscose management argued that the best cord came from rayon. As seen in Figure 7-2. much of the last $ 40 million that American Viscose and others have spent on improving viscose properties has actually been wasted and has made very few efficiency gains. The same has happened with most of the capital investment spent on the production of products such as Super 2 Viscose and Super 3 Viscose. Because of all the deteriorating financial results American Viscose was taken over by another firm.

DuPont didn’t know where the nylon was on the S-Curve, and not understanding it cost it dearly in terms of both wasted investment and wasted opportunity. The last $ 75 million or so that DuPont spent on nylon cord development could not and certainly did not matter much.

Aimed at maximizing the return on their investment in nylon research and production, Du-Pont has not invested enough in polyester research. Five years later, in the late 1960s, tire cord sales grew only marginally, while Silaniz gained over 75% of the market. DuPont has lost a great opportunity to take the lead in the competition, an opportunity it could have had if it had more accurately predicted nylon-polyester shift in the S-curve and had the courage to do polyester at the expense of nylon.

ADVANTAGE OF THE "UPWARDING"

The tire cord example underlines the third key idea needed to understand the dynamics of competition: “offensive advantage”. Many times, in industries as diverse as prepackaged food and computers, there have been examples of a one-generation technology leader losing out to a younger, smaller company that uses next-generation technology to “break into” the market. At first glance, this model seems to conflict with intuition. Leaders seem to have a huge advantage over newcomers and

advanced ": have more solid capital, higher technical qualifications, better knowledge of the buyer, a strong position in the market. It would seem that the displacement of leaders, as well as the displacement of qualified 'defenders' on the battlefield, would require a resource advantage of three to one.

However, in times of transition to new technologies, the "offensive" have their own advantages. First, they have higher R&D productivity because they operate on the steep side of the curve, and the defenders get stuck at a point of declining profits. When Silaniz began investing heavily in the development of polyester tire cord, its R&D was about five times more productive than DuPont's R&D for nylon cord.

Secondly, the "attackers" have an advantage in the results of research and development. If the productivity of R&D determines technical efficiency as a function of the application of efforts, then the results of R&D determine profit as a function of technical efficiency, that is, the economic value of technical modernization. Productivity multiplied by results equals the return on investment in R&D (Figure 7-3), which is an aggregate measure of the value of a technical strategy.

Rice. 7-3. Income on capital invested in research and development

R&D results are not a ratio that can be predicted immediately, like productivity. They are influenced by changing purchasing preferences, industrial economics and the combined strategies of all participants. It is especially difficult to calculate the results when it comes to new technologies that can sometimes give zero results... This is how it was when the producers detergents invested a lot of money in the development of a tool for a brighter optical effect.

Clothing literally became "whiter than white": brighter when the degree of brightness was measured by laboratory instruments, but not so bright in the perception of the consumer with the naked eye. Since these brighteners did not provide any improvements that the customer would be willing to pay for, R&D results were nil (and could even be negative, since adding these brighteners to detergents increased the cost of manufacturing the powders).

The "attackers" have a clear advantage in getting results because they have invested very little or nothing in the industry being attacked. Industry leaders are bound hand and foot by their investment in existing technology - factories, franchised goods, employee qualifications, etc. Like DuPont with tire cord, they will conclude that the introduction of new technologies will have such a significant impact on the price reduction and increase in production costs associated with the manufacture of current products that the combined effect of the use of existing and new technologies will be lower than if they continued their traditional business.

Finally, the "offensive" takes real advantage of the arrogance of the leaders who are the "defenders" of the technology of today. in the technological process. They

they assume that economic indicators - market share, margins - will warn them in advance of impending danger. But by the time the offensive affects these numbers, it will be too late to change course, because the transition to new technologies has gone too far. After ten years of competition in the American tire market, the radial tire market share has reached only 30%, which hardly speaks of market dominance. But over the next three years, they literally pushed other types of tires out of the market. Another common prerequisite for defenders is that they know the needs of consumers, which competitors should be closely monitored, and which technologies are most dangerous. During technological shifts, these assumptions can be misleading, because in this case, consumers will be offered benefits that they could not have dreamed of before, and small competitors will have the opportunity to come to the fore and rely on technologies that are completely different from those with what "defenders" are familiar with. Arrogance prevents the "defenders" from acting according to the situation.

PROBLEMS OF "DEFENDERS"

The potential contribution of R&D companies is increasing due to the use of new scientific discoveries, discussed in various forums and in publications, as well as developed by the companies' own employees.

Since the core of any technological change has been a change in the company's core business — say, instead of cutting sails, it now installs motors — the “defenders” or “attackers” must find the most graceful way to make a fundamental turn. This can mean hiring outsiders, acquiring other companies, or sending your employees out for retraining or retirement. Preparing for shifts in many cases represents a change in corporate culture, and since the strong culture that develops in advocate companies is likely to

swallow up or eliminate the fledgling “offensive” culture, these groups need to be organizationally independent. Even the structures of the two organizations are likely to be different: stable, solid companies are best suited for a functional organization, and new enterprises - a project-oriented matrix structure Differences and headache leaders on

which are "advancing" will continue to intensify.

But there is every reason to believe that more and more companies will face similar problems. Shifts in technology are occurring more often than we realize, and their frequency continues to increase. Organizations that climb the waves of technological change rather than run ashore are the ones. who understand the implications of S-curves and the need for conversion.

CONTROL FUNCTIONS ^ FOLLOWING AND TECHNICAL

The reaction to technological progress and the responsive behavior of the enterprise provides for an understanding of global development trends and an adequate assessment of the limits of opportunities for existing technologies.

Improving technology parameters has certain limits. These boundaries are manifested in the process of technology development over time, as well as in the behavior of technical characteristics depending on the cost of its improvement. They're called technological limits.

The limits of technology are determined by the natural laws on which it is based, and are manifested in the impossibility of improving the technical level of technology (product and its quality) and getting economic returns, i.e. further improvement of the once introduced new technology does not provide an increase in the effect perceived by the consumer.

Measurement of technical efficiency or technical level should be based on those parameters that represent the greatest consumer value, and not related to purely technical advances. This potential is exhausted as the development in the course of technical development and design of all new possibilities within the framework of a specific technological solution.

Graphically, the relationship between an increase in the technical level (technical utility, productivity) and the resources spent for these purposes is described by the Gompertz curve or a special case called the logistic curve (S-shaped), or the technological trajectory (Fig. 5).

Rice. 5.S-shaped curve

When describing the stages of technology development, the S-shaped curve reflects the inception, intensive growth and gradual achievement of the stage of full maturity of a technological process or product. The initial cost of developing an innovation at the initial stage of its life cycle give a low return. This means that the increase in the result is negligible. Then comes the outstripping increase in the result in comparison with the costs, but then there is a progressive deceleration of the return. The advanced growth stage corresponds to the position when costs are between points a and with, i.e. investment costs are high, but their return is also tangible.

During the maturity stage, investments provide lower returns than during the growth stage. They are aimed primarily at improving technological processes, implementation and advertising of modifying innovations.

To understand whether the process is in decline, one should again turn to the S-shaped curve (Fig. 6). Moreover, it is necessary to compare the curves of this technology and the one that replaces it and is competing.

Rice. 6. Technological gap: Symbols:

1 - old technological trajectory; 2 - new technological trajectory;

TU - technological level; З / В - costs / time

The divergence between the two S-curves represents a technology gap. Technological gap - it is the distance between the parameters of the effectiveness of the substituted and substituted technologies, which cannot be reduced by increasing the costs of developing the lagging technology.

At the same time, the results are understood not as profit or sales volume, but as indicators characterizing the level of technology parameters and product quality (for example, the level of metal extraction from mined ore, gasoline consumption per 100 km by a car, etc.).

In the conditions of dynamic competition, taking into account the company's own position on the technological trajectory and comparing it with the positions of competitors is necessary to select the strategies to be formed and predict the competitive struggle. The technological gap poses a significant threat to the economic well-being of the company, devalues ​​the organizational and managerial, production, sales and personnel potential accumulated by it.

The challenge is to recognize the technology gap in time and to reorient investments from the development of technology I to the development of technology II (Fig. 7).

Rice. 7. Technological gap (based on achieved results)

To bridge technological gaps, research is needed to determine the position of the firm on the corresponding S-curves for interchangeable technologies, to determine changes in this position in the near future. This change makes it possible to predict and program disposal and restructuring of the output structure and necessary equipment, make adjustments to the training system. Timely transition to new technologies is the key to payback and profitability of innovations, including by meeting new market needs. At the same time, the applied solutions must meet the criteria of economic rationality in terms of social needs, as well as the technical and economic capabilities of the enterprise.

Improving the parameters of technology has certain boundaries, which are manifested in time, as well as depending on the technical characteristics of the costs invested in its development.

The technological gap is the distance between performance parameters that cannot be reduced by increasing the cost of modern technologies.

4. Diffusion of innovations

This is the process of their distribution in the economy. More specifically, it consists in the displacement of old technologies by new ones, as well as in the acceptance of new technologies by consumers, leading to the formation of new processes that can be represented by S-curves.

where y is the value of the variable in time,

i - time factor,

a, k, b - numeric constants,

L - upper limit variable y.

5. The concept of innovation strategy

An economic (socio-economic) strategy is a system of long-term attitudes (guidelines) for decision-making, determined by the goal of development, that allow allocating resources between alternative paths of development and adjusting this distribution when external and internal conditions of functioning change.

Strategy is a complex process consisting of separate subsystems (horizontal, motivational, hierarchical).

Horizontal subsystems are the production and non-production areas, which in turn are subdivided into industries and individual organizations and enterprises. Over time, the growth and development of each of the subsystems slows down and further development is possible on the basis of qualitative changes.

The creation of innovations can be distinguished into a separate system (innovation sphere) - it is not a single one organizational system... Its components are present in the production and non-production areas.

An innovation strategy is a strategy for the development of an innovation sphere.

Economic motivational subsystems are associated with the fact that certain tools are needed to implement strategies. Each such instrument performs a specific function of tax or credit regulation, wages etc.

The hierarchical subsystem is associated with the allocation of four strategic levels: macro-level, sectoral, regional and micro-level.

State (scientific) priorities determine the main directions of the development of science and technology, which are of the greatest importance for the state of the country as a whole. The state should identify priority areas, develop strategies and facilitate their implementation. One of the main tasks of the state is to stimulate entrepreneurial activity.

6 innovation and entrepreneurship

There are various approaches to determining the types of entrepreneurial structures, they are classified according to the characteristics:

Historical form of origin;

Strategic orientation;

Functional orientation;

Attitude towards innovation;

Motivational consistency;

The scale of the activity.

1. Historical form of orientation of entrepreneurial ability - the most ancient form is based on slave labor.

medieval entrepreneur,

an entrepreneur of the era of colonial conquests (the first risky ventures appeared),

entrepreneur of the era of early capitalism (new goals appeared, for example, the accumulation of technical knowledge),

entrepreneurship in the era of concentration of capital (the first entrepreneur-organizers appeared without property),

entrepreneurs organizing the activities of the state. enterprises,

entrepreneurs-scientists (first half of the 20th century),

business analysts (mainly engaged in consulting and analytics in non-financial markets).

2. Strategic orientation

The artisan entrepreneur does not have much entrepreneurial experience, but is technically competent;

An entrepreneur-strategist has extensive experience, has capital, and has investment support.

3. Functional orientation

Manufacturing entrepreneur (on production issues);

Entrepreneur-manager (on management issues).

4. In relation to innovation

Prospector (the highest level, he independently performs pioneering research);

Innovator (systematically implements innovations, but does not always lead in his field);

Follower (imitates innovative activities, borrows the development of other entrepreneurs);

Conservative (innovates mainly to ensure competitiveness).

5. Motivational consistency is characterized by the goals of growth, consistency and independence.

6. Scope of activity

New processes and products characterize innovations directly related to production and the prospects for its development.

New markets - looking for new ways to market existing solutions.

A separate concept is entrepreneurial rent - this is the income received as a result of an innovative entrepreneurial solution during the period of monopoly use.

For the successful development of innovative production, certain conditions are necessary (figure).