|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The Abernathy – Utterback Model
| + | Abernathy-Utterback framework |
| − | | |
| − | <html>
| |
| − | <img src="/static/files/MBI/Module%206/abernathy_utterback_product_model.PNG">
| |
| − | </html>
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Fluid Phase'''
| |
| − | The first phase they called fluid phase, where technological and market uncertainties prevail, a great deal of changes take place conteporaneously and outcomes may vary significantly. It is almost a large experimentation game in the market place. The manufacturing process relies on high-skilled labour and general purpose equipment, there is almost no process innovation and the many, small firms competing will base their advantage on differentiated product features. Competition will not be as fierce as in later phases because companies have no clear idea on potential applications for the innovation, nor on what direction the market might grow. There is low bargaining power from suppliers since no specialised materials are used in the production. The major threats come from the old technology itself and from the entrance of new entrants if the innovation was radical and competence-destroying.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In this phase a company can follow two strategies. Firstly it can try outmaneuvre the competitors and establish its product as the “dominant design”(explained in the next phase). This strategy will involve agreements with distributors and marketing investments to affect customers’ perceptions. Alternatively the company can try to take control of complementary assets and wait for the appearence of the dominate design; then once the standard becomes clear it will try to secure most of the profits basing its competitive advantage on the distribution channels, supplier contracts, complementary technologies, value-added services, and others.
| |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | |Variable
| |
| − | |Fluid Phase
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Innovation
| |
| − | |Product changes/radical innovations
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Product
| |
| − | |Many different designs, customization
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Competitors
| |
| − | |Many small firms, no direct competition
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Organization
| |
| − | |Entrepreneurial, organic structure
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Threats
| |
| − | |Old technology, new entrants
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Process
| |
| − | |Flexible and inefficient
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | '''Transitional Phase'''
| |
| − | As producers start to learn more about the technology application and about customer’s needs some standardization will emerge. Usually by this time the acceptance of the innovation starts to increase and the market starts growing, signals that we are entering into what the authors called the transitional phase. The convergence pattern in this phase will lead to the appearance of a “dominant design”, which is a product degisn whose main components and underlying core characteristcs do not vary from one model to another, it often comes out as a new product syntethised from individual innovations introduced independtly in previous product variations. In Utterback words “the dominant design product has features that competitors and innovators must adhere if they hope to command significant market share following” (Utterback, J. M. – Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School 1994) .
| |
| − | | |
| − | Winning the battle for the dominant design is desirable because it will enable the firm to collect monopoly rents (given imitability is not so high or Intelectual Property Rights can be applied). Even is the standard is “open” the developer can build complementary products or enhanced versions faster, possibly establishing a new standard in the future. Microsoft managed to establish Windows as the dominant design for graphical operating systems also thanks to its previous dominant position with the MS-DOS operating system. The threat of new entrants on the transitional phase is linked to the technology involved in the innovation, if it is proprietary incumbents are favoured. Firms in this phase will use strategies to consolidate their product positioning and start increasing production capacity and process innovation in order to face the next phase, the specif phase.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | |Variable
| |
| − | |Transitional Phase
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Innovation
| |
| − | |Major process changes, architectural innovations
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Product
| |
| − | |Less differentiation due to mass production
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Competitors
| |
| − | |Many, but declining after the emergence of a dominant design
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Organization
| |
| − | |More formal structure with task groups
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Threats
| |
| − | |Imitators and successful product breakthroughs
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Process
| |
| − | |More rigid, changes occur in large steps
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | '''Specific Phase'''
| |
| − | After the appearance of the dominant design competition will shift from differentiation to product performance and costs. Companies now have a clear picture of market segments and will therefore concentrate on serving specific customers. Manufacturing will use highly specialised equipment and employing high-skilled labour become less important since there is a commoditisation taking place, which in turn means that bargaining power of both suppliers and customers will increase.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Competition becomes more intense and the market moves towards an oligopoly. As a consequence incumbets are able to secure their position through supplier relations, distributtion channels and other complementary assets that will create entry barriers to new entrants.
| |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| |
| − | |Variable
| |
| − | |Specific Phase
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Innovation
| |
| − | |Incremental innovations, improvements in quality
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Product
| |
| − | |Heavy standardization in product designs
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Competitors
| |
| − | |Few, classic oligopoly
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Organization
| |
| − | |Traditional hierarchical organization
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Threats
| |
| − | |New technologies and firms bringing disrupting innovations
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |Process
| |
| − | |Efficient, capital intensive and rigid
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | '''The Abernathy-Utterback framework does not characterize all industries.''' It seems more suited to mass markets where consumer tastes are relatively homogeneous. It would appear to be less characteristic of small niche markets where the absence of scale and learning economies attaches much less of a penalty to multiple designs.
| |
| | [[Category:mbi]] | | [[Category:mbi]] |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Model]] | | [[Category:Model]] |
