Relevance of Technology Pull and Push Debates - Essay Example

?Relevance Of Technology Pull And Push Debates Definition of Pull and Push Technology It is imperative to understand the meaning of market pull and push in relation to science technology. Demand-pull or market pull is the reaction to the consumer demands thus resulting to a particular innovation that will meet the consumer needs. On the other hand, technology push is a method that entails forcing a new technology or product onto the market that actually did not require or ask for it (Black and Hodgson 2010, p1). The proposition of technology-push by Schumpeter indicates that science and technological research are a strong stimulant for the creation of innovative products and a vehicle for entrepreneurial activity (Chang et al. 2011, p1). This paper discusses the significance of technology pull and push in light of current occurrences in the business and technological environment. Background of Pull and Push Technology Debate General debates concerning market pull and science and technology push are numerous. There is a great debate concerning the relative significance of demand pull and science and technology push in triggering innovative activity and identifying the patterns of innovative activities. Most researchers have pointed out that both demand pull and technology push are important for the success of any innovation. They further argue that the current debate on the relevance of technology push and demand pull are ill-conceived. According to Schmookler, demand pull has a stronger impact than science and technology push on the patterns of innovative activities both over time and across the industry (Pavitt 1984, p365). The motivational genesis of innovation has some importance for success of the company. In a research survey conducted on 43 pairs of technological innovations, 21 percent of them required need-pull to be successful. However, in the remaining 79 percent, there was no association between failure and motivation and success. There was no case where need-pull differentiated in favor of failure or technology-push differentiated in favor of success (Rothwell 1974, p277). Mowery and Rosenberg reviewed major survey researches, which examined the factors associated with the success of industry innovation. In this research, they looked for evidence as to whether market demand or technology has the most significant influence on the success of innovation (Howells 1997, p1209). The paper concluded that the presumed assumption that market demand was important than technology push was ill-conceived and was not supported by any evidence. The conclusion practically undermines the policy notion that market demand brings about innovation and thus, the government is not required to intervene because innovation will be taken care by the market. Since the publication of the Mower and Rosenberg’s papers, there have been attempts to identify through survey research the factors that affect or influence innovation. These attempts have also led to debate whether market pull or technology push has greater significance in innovation. Mower and Rosenberg have indicated that those terms (market pull and technology push) lack precision, and they vary in meaning between research projects. Thus, they make comparison a difficult process (Howells 1997, p1210). Ottoson (2004, p279) argues that in order to solve one section of the problem, two forms of organizations must exist; innovation push project organization to cater for the new innovations and a process-centered organization to take care of the current market demands or needs. According to Ottoson (2004, p280), the aim of innovative development is to create products that can be retailed. After the products have been sold and used, re-engineering is done to make sure that the market need or demand is generated. It is important to note that innovative development has not gained much attention because the main focus has been on re-engineering and engineering details (Ottoson 2004, p280). Most of the companies continue to function on a flawed supposition that demand is inherently foreseeable. However, there are others who have began embracing a more flexible approach in setting the motion or mobilizing intangible and tangible assets or resources; these assets may be within or outside the organization (or company). This approach is defined as the pull system of mobilizing resources. The pull system dates back to 1950s having emerged from Toyota Motor’s lean manufacturing system. The company started pulling resources into the assembly line as required rather than permitting inventories to accumulate during the production process. The approach is being adopted by almost all sectors including supply chain operations, manufacturing, the media, and pharmaceutical research and development (Black and Hodgson 2010, p1). Relevance of the Current Debate on Pull and Push Technology The current debate on market pull and push technology is important because it assists the company to know the best ways to approach a business and maximize their innovation capability within the industry. Pull systems are very different from push systems, particularly in the context of demand. Push systems treat demand as foreseeable while pull systems treat demand as highly uncertain. The difference in the two systems results to different design principles. For instance, push systems deal with uncertainty by tightening the controls while pull models deal with the same issued by expanding the chances for local participants (customers and employees) to make use of their creativity. To exploit the chances that uncertainty gives, pull models assist individuals to come together and innovate through specialized and shared resources (McKinsey & Co. 2005, p3). As stated before, there are sharp contrasts between pull systems and push systems. For instance, pull systems are loosely coupled while the push systems are tightly coupled; and pull systems are people centric whereas push systems are resource centric their main focus being innovation as push systems focus on efficiency. Instead of constraining the range of resources available to the participants, pull systems continuously strive to expand the resources while at the same time assisting the participants to get the most relevant alternatives. Pull models give the individuals on the periphery the resources and tools required to address opportunities and initiatives as they occur rather than dictating the actions of the participants (McKinsey & Co. 2005, p4). The benefits of pull systems include increased chances for collaboration, enhanced innovation, greater scalability, more rapid feedback, closer relationship with suppliers and consumers, and a diverse reflection on the outcomes of distributed experimentation. However, according to McKinsey & Co. (2005, p5), the most important reason to start implementing pull systems is because they assist companies or organizations to secure deeper supplies of competitive advantage at a period when the conventional sources are disappearing (McKinsey & Co. 2005, p5). Thus, the current debate about pull and push technology is important because it will assist the company to know the best ways to approach a business and maximize their innovation capabilities. Both systems give options to the company on how to deal with certain situations in the best way possible. Examples of Pull and Push Technology Taiwan original – design manufacturers (ODMs) such as Quanta and Compal Computer provide equally convincing instances of distributed product innovation. They (the ODMs) creatively pull collectively highly specialized subsystem and component suppliers so as to produce ideas that will deliver high performance at relatively lower costs in a wide variety of digital devices such as mobile telephones, notebook computers, and digital still cameras. Rather than designing products comprehensively from top down, original – design manufacturers specify determined performance targets and then depend on a wide variety of technology partners to look for new methods of meeting them. Several companies such as Nokia, P&G, and Eli Lilly are also using informal open-innovation methods. For instance, in 2001, Lilly developed a wholly owned subsidiary by the name InnoCentive (McKinsey & Co. 2005, p2). The subsidiary InnoCentive has recruited a diverse network of research participants (more than 80,000) called solvers to assist its clients look for solutions to the difficult research and development (R&D) challenges. The subsidiary has more than 30 seekers (or clients) and they include Lilly (the parent company), P&G, and Dow Chemical. When seekers face a difficult or complicated research challenge, they post the requirements to the solver network in InnoCentive and provide a bounty to the individual who gets the solution. The success rate of InnoCentive is approximately 50%. This figure is not bad compared to the inability of the internal R&D to solve the research problems. There are indications that the solver network of InnoCentive is beginning to self-organize. This is because the diverse solvers are coming together to solve a particular seeker’s requirements. This is a classic example of a pull system; when needs cannot be easily identified in advance, organizations or firms can develop platforms to gather the readily available distributed resources (McKinsey & Co. 2005, p2). The pharmaceutical industry offers an interesting insight into the pull and push technology debate. During the early 19th century, it became evident that the expanding textile industry was unable to thrive on dyestuff from natural trade alone. Additionally, there was an increasing demand from the consumers for uniform and higher quality dyes. By mid 19th century, dye companies began to recruit chemists as colourists, and there was a thorough search for purple dyes to satisfy the demand of the fashion industry. During the same period (mid 19th century), a chemist by the name William Perkins discovered the first synthetic dye “mauve.” There has been considerable debate among the science historians on whether the discovery was because of technology push or market pull. However, statistics indicate the discovery was as a result of market pull, but the traditional view suggests that the discovery was because of science push (Chang et al. 2011, p2). The twentieth century saw a combination of both push and pull strategies. Orphanage and neglected diseases have been the major global health issues in the past three decades. Their cost (around $800 million) and the timescale (an average of 8 – 12 years) of present drug development, and the absence of financial returns have made the diseases reasonably unviable to research on. The Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983 was launched and it contained particular push and pull strategies to motivate R&D investment and research on neglected and rare diseases. The provisions in the Act offer R&D push and pull is the seven years market time to stimulate research in orphan diseases. Several years after its launch, ODA is now considered a successful policy model due to its effective provisions having both pull and push strategies (Chang et al. 2011, p3). In the 21st century, market pull is common in the pharmaceutical industry. For instance, most of the drug promotions are aimed at meeting the consumer needs through means such s print advertising, radio, television, and the internet. Panadol (developed by GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]) is a famous killer brand that was introduced in UK in the year 1955. The drug is sold in over 85 countries in the world. The GSK mission is to make sure that consumers are provided with Panadol upon request. Furthermore, GSK began promoting Panadol through 360 – degree campaign via several marketing channels as mentioned earlier. The success of the marketing strategy depended on the advertisement expenditure used to promote Panadol (the cost of Panadol advertisement is estimated to be ?3.7 millions). In 2010, Panadol was voted as the UK Pain Relief Product of the Year. It is with no doubt that the advertisements increased Panadol sales and offered a platform for additional R&D. Thus, directing the research efforts towards reacting to the future needs of the consumer (Chang et al. 2011, p3). Conclusion The growth of economies, industries, and corporations is accomplished through the application of services and products that relate to scientific and technological changes. There are researchers who argue that demand-pull leads to inventive activities. Other individuals such as Gaussling define demand-pull as the method through which there is direct response to the clear market demands. Rothwell’s innovation models explain, clearly, the meaning of technology push and market pull. According to the model, technology push is characterized by basic science, design and engineering, manufacturing, marketing and sales. On the other hand, market pull is characterized by market needs, development, manufacturing, and sales. As can be established from the above discussion, market or technology pull has been widely applied in the fulfillment of market demands. The technology pull strategy has been widely successful to a point that many have tended to believe that technology push is a waste of effort. This notion is, however, far beyond the truth considering the level of success that technology push has drawn for numerous companies. In fact, several companies thrive on innovation beyond what the customers actually need. In respect of these findings, both technology pull and push are important in the business environment and can draw pleasant result for businesses as long as they are properly and judiciously applied and implemented. References Black, I. & Hodgson, M. (2010) WebCT: Management of R and D and product innovation [P01498] – 2009-2010 [6]: Demand-pull vs. science and technology push, Confluence, 16 March, p1-4. Chang, J., Campbell, K., Kung, W. & Gan, Y. (2011) WebCT: Management of R and D and product innovation (MSc) [CMSE11904] – 2010-2011 [SV1-SEM2] (RandDcourse): Push vs pull – A pharmaceutical overview, Confluence, 12 March, p1-6. Howells, J. (1997) Rethinking the market – technology relationship for innovation. Research Policy, 25, pp1209-1219. McKinsey & Co. (2005) From push to pull: The next frontier of innovation, CFO.com, 19 October, p1-6. Ottosson, S. (2004) Dealing with innovation push and market need. Technovation, 24, pp279-285. Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, pp343-373. Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horsley, A., Jervis, V. T. P., Robertson, A. B. & Townsend, J. (1974) SAPPHO updated – project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy, 3, pp258-291. Read More