Are technology companies ready to be disturbed?

This month’s column has given many readers the opportunity to address my talk on the need to break the fight against increasing impenetrability and waste of technological innovation from the user’s point of view.

Several hypotheses of why high-tech industries today are prone to failure reflect the opinions of those who have studied the phenomenon. Philippe Gouamba said: “It is more important for Apple to outperform Samsung (and vice versa) than for us to provide products and innovations that we can actually use.” Paul Hamilton-Smith said software publishers “are largely surviving on their renewal revenue stream, which is generated by” new and improved “software versions, and Julian Lowe said,” I’ve always got the impression that a geek is trying to kill its peers to impress and simply confuse the customer. ”

Mark Altobello presented an interesting theory: “We try to make the software as flexible as possible to reduce the cost of future changes, but I think we do not want to give the user what he says – and then fix it when changes are needed. “Kamal Gupta’s comment suggests that the ability that customers can spend on unused functions can be a factor. He said, “The disruption is already happening modestly in India – from the $ 2,500 car, the $ 100 smartphones, to the masses, and other similar innovative household technologies – rural.” Kapil Kumar Sopory has even suggested that we are the problem. “Each of us has limited priorities and remains satisfied with the absolute minimum, there is (a) a need (for us) to regularly research and improve knowledge and skills …”

Robert Soloman pointed out that the problem is not universal in the sense that “companies that adopt a streamlined methodology that initially focuses on a minimum viable product (MVP) typically do not have this problem …” The corresponding MVP contains only the minimum set of features that a user finds useful – and willing to pay for them. ”

Others pointed out that high technology is experiencing a rapid disruption. Mark Witczak commented on the irony that the cloud is the current mainframe: “The old is young again, the same is true of the other technologies, and I think the computer revolution has evolved our eyes, but not on a global scale.” Doug Elliott added, “There are already disruptions (in information technology) … and even more so than in the manufacturing sector, I suppose.”

Some comments have recognized the role that is also “cool” when “innovation ahead” is needed to play a role in the development of high-tech products. Joe Schmid wondered about a world without innovation. “The troublemaker understands the problems of his predecessors and tries to solve the outstanding problem that arises when sludge starts, leaving a discreet lever to a clever student.” Thornton Parker took this thinking one step further and said, “As reasonable as it may sound, I wonder if there is (interrupts the high technology) a prescription for higher standard value products that may have little added value and be products in the market coming years – countries with the lowest costs “.

Does Parker have something here? What are the disadvantages of high technology interferences? What do you think?

original Article
I wonder why I understand so little about political issues, product discussions and even general technology news. That’s my problem. I need to remedy this situation by doing what Jack Welch asked all of his GE colleagues to do: find a mentor who is up to 30 years old and help me bring my skills and technical knowledge up to date ,

Is it my imagination or is the world of information technology so interconnected that it loses contact with users, especially those of a certain age? If it is not my idea, then it is the problem and the possibilities of the world of technology. Given the risk of using the most used and least used term of the decade, would the masters of the disruption offer attractive opportunities even to those who would disturb them?

The original concept of Clay Christensen’s Disorder is very simple. This is the successful development of simple products and solutions with fewer features and much lower prices than the competing products of a product development strategy that requires growth based on product obsolescence and more and more. more expensive bells and whistles, but largely unused.

We are told that the typical information technology user today uses less than 5% of the functionality of current hardware and software. A small number of basic functions are used repeatedly by the typical user. These are the necessary functions. Features that developers find enjoyable can improve marketing activities and satisfy software engineers’ desire for complex tasks, but remain largely unused. For some, they make access to “need to have” features even more confusing.

How did this happen? Is the information technology that we face today mostly a small group of entrepreneurs, engineers and venture capitalists who are close to each other and often use restaurants and speak their own language? They represent a classic “cluster” in the competitive strategy world. But are they denied consumer exposure in terms of age, education, technological sophistication and, as recently challenged in a lawsuit, gender?

Scott Cook (HBS MBA ’76), co-founder of Intuit and a real distractor, inspires me to speak these words. Since its inception, Intuit has quickly become the leading manufacturer of personal finance software for small businesses. He did so by providing simple and cost-effective solutions to everyday problems. First, it solved Scott’s family problem of offsetting the checkbook. Intuit would have been the 47th software manufacturer to solve the problem. He did so by using known checks and checkbooks as a metaphor that could be handled safely on a computer screen. Scott likes to say that Inuit had the advantage of being his 47th author, also because he had pursued a strategy that featured pencil as the company’s main rival. As a result, Intuit dominated the markets and fiercely beat Microsoft in the personal finance software game. This was done by recruiting software engineers hard to find in Silicon Valley. Those who really want to design simpler products than their competitors. Cook’s business bothered his industry.

Share :


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

two × four =