Leveraging Technology for Organisational Brilliance
"Engineering in the long-run is irrelevant ".That's exactly what a customer of mine said when I made a presentation to him of a new product. I had been talking about the product's functions and benefits and listed "state-of-the-art engineering" or anything to that particular impact, together of them. That's when he made his statement. I recognized later that he was right, at the least within the context of how I used "Engineering" in my own presentation. But I began considering whether he could be proper in other contexts as well.
Merriam-Webster defines it as:
a: the sensible application of information specially in a particular area: design 2
b: a capability written by the sensible application of information
Equally explanations revolve around the same - application and usage.
Engineering can be an enabler
Many individuals mistakenly still find it engineering which drives innovation. However from the explanations over, that is obviously perhaps not the case. It's opportunity which defines development and engineering which helps innovation. Think of the classic "Construct a better mousetrap" case shown in most organization schools. You might have the engineering to build a better mousetrap, but if you have number rodents or the old mousetrap works well, there's number opportunity and then your engineering to build a better one becomes irrelevant. On one other hand, if you should be overrun with rodents then your opportunity exists to innovate a product making use of your technology.
Yet another case, one with which I'm intimately common, are gadgets start-up companies. I have been connected with both those who prevailed and those who failed. Each possessed special major edge technologies. The big difference was opportunity. Those who failed could not discover the opportunity to produce a meaningful development employing their technology. Actually to survive, these companies had to morph frequently in to anything totally different and if these were fortunate they could make the most of derivatives of their unique technology. More regularly than perhaps not, the first engineering injure up in the scrap heap. Engineering, therefore, can be an enabler whose supreme price proposition is to create improvements to our lives. In order to be appropriate, it needs to be used to create improvements that are driven by opportunity.
Engineering as a aggressive benefit?
Many companies number a engineering together of their aggressive advantages. Is that legitimate? Sometimes yes, but In most cases no.
Engineering evolves along two routes - an transformative route and a revolutionary path.
A revolutionary engineering is the one that helps new industries or helps answers to problems that were formerly perhaps not possible. Semiconductor engineering is a great example. Not only achieved it spawn new industries and items, nonetheless it spawned other revolutionary systems - transistor engineering, incorporated signal engineering, microprocessor technology. All which provide most of the items and solutions we eat up Tech Trends & Lifestyle Blogger today. But is semiconductor engineering a aggressive benefit? Considering the amount of semiconductor companies that exist today (with new people developing every day), I'd state not. What about microprocessor engineering? Again, no. A lot of microprocessor companies out there. What about quad key microprocessor engineering? Maybe not as many companies, but you've Intel, AMD, ARM, and a number of companies building custom quad key processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). So again, little of a aggressive advantage. Competition from competitive systems and easy use of IP mitigates the perceived aggressive advantageous asset of any specific technology. Android versus iOS is a great exemplory instance of how that works. Equally os's are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used their engineering to present iOS and obtained an early market advantage. But, Google, utilizing their variant of Unix (a competitive technology), caught up fairly quickly. The reasons because of this sit perhaps not in the main engineering, but in how these products made probable by these systems were brought to promote (free vs. walled garden, etc.) and the differences in the strategic ideas of each company.
Transformative engineering is the one that incrementally forms upon the base revolutionary technology. But by it's very nature, the small modify is simpler for a rival to fit or leapfrog. Take for example instant cellphone technology. Company V introduced 4G items just before Company A and while it might have had a short term benefit, as soon as Company A introduced their 4G items, the advantage due to engineering disappeared. The buyer went back to selecting Company A or Company V based on cost, service, protection, whatever, however, not based on technology. Ergo engineering could have been appropriate in the temporary, but in the long run, became irrelevant.