Failure at Sun Systems - Case Study Example

ASSIGNMENT TASK: FAILURE AT SUN SYSTEMS Name Institution Professor Course Date Assignment Task: Failure at Sun Systems Introduction From a popular perspective, ‘you learn more from your failures than from your successes. Nevertheless, in the case of failed innovations in organizations, the perspective does not always hold any substantial argument. According to Valikangas, Hoegl, & Gibbert, (2008) failure might generate innovation trauma, which relates to inability of the business entities and organisations to commit to innovations because of severe disappointment from the previous innovation failures. In their article, these authors focus on discussing the aspect of innovation trauma in the context of Sun Ray relating to the thin-client computing innovation coming from the Sun Labs at Sun Microsystems. It is essential to note that the close relationship or association between Sun Ray and the highly publicized failure with reference to JavaStation, thus lack of substantial change to prove its mettle. The research article also makes substantive suggestions in relation to overcoming innovation trauma as critical, but underappreciated aspect of innovation management in business entities or companies such as Sun Microsystems depending on the continuous innovation for the achievement or attainment of sustainable competition. From this perspective, the concept has significance and importance beyond the particular case study because of its influence in identification of the role of emotions in innovation failure, as well as the need for the managers or executives to mediate in the presence of such potentiality traumatic experiences with the objective of sustaining innovation following serious failures. The purpose of this essay is to appraise the view by the article in relation to the influence of innovation trauma in contributing to the failure of Sun Ray from a critical perspective. The essay will also examine the influence of the major management errors in explaining the innovation failure with reference to the case of Sun Ray. In the course of developing the essay, it is essential to consider the influence of good and bad employees prior to the assessment of bad management, capital, and employee friendship in relation to the growth and development of an organization. From the above illustrations, the common denominator relates to the involvement of the ego or emotions within the aspects of innovation. Analysis Innovation has the tendency to fail at an alarming rate. Some of the causes or explanations for the innovations failure include developer-based, product-based, and consumer-based illustrations. Nevertheless, the research article notes that the most common explanations depend on the individuals carrying the aspects of innovation forward. Researchers have the tendency of aspects of dreaming, overconfidence, arrogance, and escalation of the commitment to plain ignorance contribute to the failure in innovations. Innovation Trauma at Sun Microsystems The onset of innovation integrates lots of hard work and a dream. The objective of Sun Ray was to change or transform the industry, thus the launch of the ‘simple low-cost device’, which did not require desktop administration at the Enterprise Computing Forum, New York in 1999. In this context, Sun Ray had the perfect opportunity to redefine the concept of ‘desktop computing’. In addition, Sun Ray focused on the utilization of the platform to exhibit various benefits through saving more than two million dollars in electricity costs because of the reduced power to run the project. In spite of these developments and high hopes, Sun Ray did not have the opportunity to sell anywhere near the one hundred thousand units in accordance to its expectations during the first year of its engagement in the innovation. During the first six years of transaction, Sun Ray did struggle in the process of landing one significant reference customer with the intention of touting its magnificence. From this perspective, it is possible to line Sun Ray up behind other novel computing ideas as another radical innovation, which could not generate substantive and significant wealth in relation to the expectations of the creators (Wilson, Wright & Altanlar, 2013). In the course of making an innovation work, it is critical to understand what the market wants prior to making big investments in the project. The difficulties of innovative work have the potentiality of demanding resiliency, but not all innovators have the ability to rebound as quickly as possible in relation to the failure in innovation. In most cases, certain companies and business entities have the tendency of suffering from the aspect of ‘innovation trauma’. This relates to the failure of the concept in spite of the existing commitment and hard work by the business entity or company within the context of the market and industry of operation. Such entities feel the sense of devastation. In other instances, cynicism concerning innovation replaces enthusiasm for innovation, as well as the fear for another failure, which is critical in paralyzing the team members or other employees in pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage within the market and industry of operation (Stuart, 1996). It is essential to note that innovation trauma comes out in situations where teams become close or work together with reference to the startup-like conditions in the course of the intensive period. Sun Microsystems Inc. publicized its JavaStation network computer in the late 1990s as the perfect program or product to facilitate dethroning of the Microsoft Corp. Instead of achieving this goal or innovative dream, JavaStation fizzled. The eventual outcome was the merger of the JavaStation team into the rival group working on the Sun Ray project, which was another new network computer during the engagement between the two business entities (Moenkemeyer, Hoegl, & Weiss, 2012). The failure of JavaStation was essential in leaving the sales department skittish prior to disgruntle by the JavaStation team on the essence of killing their project in favor of the Sun Ray. There was substantial need to bridge the knowledge. Instead of focusing on the bringing of the essential knowledge, Sun Ray perceived the role of JavaStation as bringing the ‘culture of failure’ into the agreement or alliance between the two competitors within the computer network industry. The eventual outcome is evident in the failure of the Sun Ray to meet substantive expectations in accordance with the preferences and demands of the creators, as well as consumers within the industry and market of engagement. Innovation trauma occurs when an organization decides to execute something innovative, but the unique idea or product fails. In this context, employees have the obligation and tendency of believing that they are not able to implement new ideas successfully. In order to find success, it is essential to return to the relevant standards in relation to execution of basic business activities (Terranova, 2006). The result comes out as the organizational stagnation, as well as the general fear of executing new things. At the basic level, innovation trauma is essential in explaining why business entities find themselves in the pattern of failure with the products they are generating, even when nothing is wrong, per se. The essence or concept of innovation trauma is highly evident in the case of the Sun Ray Computer. It is critical to note that Sun Microsystems had a relatively large failure with their JavaStation network computer. As evident in the research article, the expectation was that the innovative computer would play a critical role in dethroning Microsoft in the late 1990s. Instead of achieving this goal, the project sold miserably, thus forcing Sun Microsystems to abandon the project ultimately. Sun Microsystems had the chance to abandon the project, but it had massive influences on the operations of the company with reference to marketing, as well as motivation of the employees in pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage. The development of the computer, Sun Ray was essential in following the failure in innovation. The product intended to take the market by storm, but experienced the influence of innovation trauma, thus massive underperformance in sales. From this perspective, it is critical to note that Sun Microsystems was unable to recover from its previous failures. In addition, it was impossible for the organization or Sun Microsystems to learn from the failure, which was critical in the stagnation of growth and development of the company within the market and industry of operation (Gorrell, 2008). According to various researchers, innovation results from the personal devastation under the influence of unrealistic expectations, which relate to the perception of the innovation to solve all of the issues affecting an organization. Failure of an organization to meet these expectations leads to the traumatization of the employees and teams by technology since it did not work in the previous platforms or contexts. Moreover, lack of essential information in relation to the potential implications of the innovation decisions might cause innovation trauma from the very beginning of the project. Similarly, innovation trauma comes out as contagious, as well as continuous (Nguyen, 2011). From this perspective, the existing or serving employees during the case of the innovation trauma have the potentiality of experiencing the effects of this failure years later. Until now, there seems to be little attention in relation to the evaluation of the emotional costs of innovation failures, as well as how prior innovation failures have the tendency in hindering subsequent new, related innovation. The case of Sun Microsystems’ Sun Ray computer demonstrates the devastating impact in relation to the institutional innovation failure trauma. From this perspective, it is critical to note that Sun Ray innovation encountered the classic ‘innovator’s dilemma’ issues, which are more common in the business entities attempting to champion disruptive innovations (Wan, 2010). In spite of the rapid development and growth of the organization, the institution continues to suffer in the course of catching hold with the consumers. The organization fails to exploit various strong competitive advantages to achieve sustainability and ideal position within the market and industry of transaction. Largely, the causes relate to inability of Microsystems’ inability to learn from the earlier innovative JavaStation’s failure in the course of recovering from the trauma of the innovation failure. In addition, other researchers have focused on the examination of the influence of the innovation trauma in hindering development or growth of new products. These aspects are essential in understanding the implications of the concept in relation to the poor position of the organization within the market and industry of operation. It is critical to examine the influence of the previous innovation failures hindering subsequent or related innovation at Sun Microsystems. Moreover, it is critical for the researchers to examine the influence of the human resource management and relevant aspects in the course of hindering growth and development, as well as innovation within the modern entities in the globalized economies. Failure comes out as an outcome, which deviates from the expectations or the desired results. On the other hand, learning from failure relates to the processes, as well as behaviors through which individuals, teams, groups, and organizations obtain accurate and useful insights from failures prior to modification of the future behaviors, processes, and systems in accordance with the findings (Tietze, Pieper, & Herstatt, 2014). It is critical to note that the ability to learn from experience is crucial to the performance, as well as well-being of the individuals, organizations, and relevant groups. Nevertheless, various research practitioners and studies continue to show that organizational learning from failure encounters defensive interpersonal cognitions and routines, as well as the systems and process of the organization favoring continuity and routine rather than learning. Learning comes out as the only process, which is capable of turning failure of an innovation into success of the business entity in pursuit of competitive advantage within the market and industry of operation. Various researchers have focused on failure, as well as the tendency of learning from failure. Nevertheless, there is still inappropriate literature in relation to aspects of learning from failure, as well as exploration of the influence of failure magnitude on the learning process (Vidal et al., 2014). Execution of research should focus on helping organizations to understand the barriers while acting as facilitators of learning from failures. The approach is essential in enabling organizations to design appropriate organizational techniques and mechanisms for learning from failure, thus improving innovation in the long-term perspective. From a rational perspective, learning from failure is one of the most critical aspects in relation to the achievement of success. In most cases, firms or business entities have the tendency to learn through solving problems rather than their relevant triumphs. In spite of these perceptions, it is critical to note that note many organisations learn from the systematic or innovative failure, which is the reason behind the struggles by Sun Microsystems in the course of overcoming the potential failures while trying to incorporate Sun Ray computers in the market and industry of operation. From a theoretical perspective, organizational learning is an ongoing cyclical process through which experience from task performance develop into knowledge, thus transformation of the context while affecting future experiences of the business entity. From this illustration, it is essential to note that organizational learning relates to the change in the company’s knowledge developing as a function of experience. In most cases, this change occurs in the cognition or behavior in relation to the individual or trans-active memory systems, as well as routines (Tan and Nasurdin, 2010). The framework and definition have the tendency of highlighting the central role played by experience as the starting point and the final point in relation to the organizational learning. In the case of Sun Microsystems, innovation trauma has been essential in the limiting or hindering the learning process, as well as readiness and motivation of the organization to change towards the achievement of the desired results or perspectives. It is critical to note that the experience of failure has the potentiality of creating the readiness and motivation for the organizations to adapt in abnormal circumstances. The ability to adapt or change is vital for the long-term survival of the business entities in pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage. However, the development or emergence of the innovation trauma continues to hinder the ability and potentiality of the organizations to learn from failure through expression of the desire, readiness, and motivation to adopt and implement various approaches like in the case of the Sun Microsystems (Tan and Nasurdin, 2011). Successes in innovation activities relate to the inherent perception of change of organization’s resources for the competition under the influence of leveraging capabilities and routines. In this context, the essence of dynamic capabilities and resources are crucial in relation to the success or sustainability of innovative firms. The presence of the innovation trauma has been critical in limiting the potentiality of the Sun Microsystems to focus on learning from the experience. In addition, organizations need to overcome the innovation trauma through increased risk tolerance. According to the prospect theory, experience of failure relates to the risk-seeking behaviour (Bakker et al, 2012). However, it is critical to tie success to risk aversion. The risk-taking behavior is essential in enabling organizations to overcome innovation trauma, thus the perfect platform for the institutions to spur corporate innovation. The approach is also accurate in enabling the organizations to express the willingness to experiment when facing complex issues rather than choosing the safer route with reference to avoidance of risk. It is also critical for the business entities to consider facilitating practices, which will contribute towards solving future issues in relation to innovation (Moldenhauer‐Salazar & Välikangas, 2008). Conclusively, the research article is accurate and informational in relation to expressing the influence of innovation trauma on struggles by Sun Microsystems. The implications of the innovation trauma depend on the expectations of the firms with reference to the size of the project seeking to address the demands and expectations of the consumers within the market and industry of operation. It is critical for the organizations to adopt and implement appropriate mechanisms to facilitate overcoming of the innovation trauma. Sun Microsystems should consider training and development of the employees with the intention of limiting the emotional or cognitive costs during innovative projects (Bakker, 2011). Management Errors vs. Innovation Failure Apart from the influence of innovation trauma, Sun Microsystems might also suffer from various management errors in relation to the development and implementation of innovative ideas in relation to the demands and expectations of the consumers and creators. HRM practices are essential in playing a critical role in the achievement of success in relation to innovation within the organization. Various HRM practices have the ability and potentiality to nurse, as well as constrain creativity within the organization. Employees work in various ways to contribute to the innovations. In the modern context, various companies face constantly intensified global competition requiring that they innovate or transform themselves, as well as their production on a regular basis. In the course of achieving this competitive position and surviving the increased level of competition, companies need to depend on the flexibility and ability or potentiality to adapt and respond to the environment. In addition, it is critical for such organizations to come up with or introduce innovative products in accordance with the demands and expectations of the consumers within the market and industry of transaction. Like in cases of various companies, HRM (Human Resource Management) has a crucial role or function in the stimulation of innovation processes within the context of Sun Microsystems through influences on knowledge sharing and creativity. Nevertheless, it is difficult to manage this role or function by the HRM. This requires the ability of an organization to concentrate on combining or reorganizing information and knowledge with the intention of developing new understandings, as well as conceptual systems to the realization of the creative thoughts in the course of influencing innovation processes. Similarly, HRM has the obligation of caring for the intrinsic motivations, which drive creative individuals (Gruman & Saks, 2011). From this perspective, HRM practices are crucial in the determination of how business entities or companies influence or shape diverse attitudes, behaviour, and skills of individuals in pursuit of effective innovations in accordance with the goals and expectations of the entities. It is critical to note that HRM has a dual role in the development and growth of the organizations within the fiscal or financial period. On one hand, HRM concerns policies and practices with reference to organizing and managing work inclusive of the fundamental structure of the work organization. On the other hand, HRM focuses on encompassing policies, as well as practices in the course of employing and managing people inclusive of the individual management activities such as recruiting, motivating, developing, and retaining employees. Moreover, HRM practices relate to the processes vital in informing, consulting, and negotiating with the individuals, as well as subsequent groups (Ghafoor, Qureshi, Khan, & Hijazi, 2011). Human resources have critical roles and obligations to play in relation to the achievement of the goals and targets of innovation. Good employees have positive implications on the performance of the business entities during integration of innovative strategies and projects. Similarly, such employees express improved dedication and commitment in pursuit of sustainable competitive advantage within the market and industry of operation. Motivation of the good employees is to improve the image and reputation of the organization within the market and industry of influence. In the course of achieving these goals, such employees contribute to the improvement of the organizational culture and image, thus the eventual increase in the performance or profitability levels of the organizations at the end of the fiscal period. Moreover, good employees limit damages or risks, as well as losses to the organization, thus the perfect platform for the business entities to maintain their costs while enhancing effectiveness and efficiency in the production and service delivery in accordance with the expectations of the consumers (Mavondo et al., 2005). On the other hand, bad employees might be detrimental towards the achievement of successful innovations within the context of various industrial platforms. For instance, bad employees have the tendency of creating inappropriate environment, which might limit the potentiality of the employees to maximize their skills and core competencies while addressing the demands and targets of the organizations. Similarly, such employees might have negative influences on the performance of other employees because of the reduced motivation in pursuit of sustainable growth and development. Furthermore, poor or bad employees tend to have inappropriate motives during the innovation processes. During such cases, there are increased chances of failure by the organization in relation to lack of ability or potentiality to address expectations and demands of the business entity or consumers within the globalized economy (Karlsson, 2013). From this perspective, bad employees will have bad or inappropriate image and reputation of the organization among the target audiences, thus reduction in the profitability and the eventual failure of the innovation process. In the case of Sun Microsystems, it is critical to note that the employees from the divide might have been poor in accordance with the expectations of the creators of the innovative project, thus massive influence on the failure of the projects. Good or bad employees emanate from the HRM practices and processes within an organization. From this perspective, it is the obligation of the business entities to adopt and implement appropriate platforms with the intention of generating quality or effective employees to facilitate the achievement of their goals in relation to innovation management. In addition, employers need to adopt and integrate ideal mechanisms or approaches, which are critical in motivating employees to exploit or maximize their skills and core competencies in the course of addressing their obligations and responsibilities. Ineffective management contributes to substantive failure in relation to the demands and expectations of the business entity. In this context, it is critical for the organizations to adopt and implement appropriate mechanisms, which would engage employees in the innovation process. Lack of this aspect of management might have been one of the causes relating to the struggles by Sun Microsystems in the course of trying to overcome the innovation trauma under the influence of the Sun Ray computer network. It is ideal to note that effective HRM practices and processes contribute to increased effectiveness and efficiency in the assessment of the opportunities for innovation in accordance with the demands and expectations of the consumers. Conclusion Conclusively, ‘you learn more from your failures than from your successes. Nevertheless, in the case of failed innovations in organizations, the perspective does not always hold any substantial argument. According to Valikangas, Hoegl, & Gibbert, (2008) failure might generate innovation trauma, which relates to inability of the business entities and organisations to commit to innovations because of severe disappointment from the previous innovation failures. The purpose of this essay was to appraise the view by the article in relation to the influence of innovation trauma in contributing to the failure of Sun Ray from a critical perspective. The essay examined the influence of the major management errors in explaining the innovation failure with reference to the case of Sun Ray. According to the findings of the essay, innovation trauma has been one of the reasons relating to the failure of Sun Ray, thus the need for the organization to adopt and implement appropriate platform and practices to aid overcoming of the issue. Innovation trauma occurs when an organization decides to execute something innovative, but the unique idea or product fails. In this context, employees have the obligation and tendency of believing that they are not able to implement new ideas successfully. Similarly, HRM practices and process did not do enough in pursuit of the success of the innovation process in relation to the case of the Sun Ray project. There is substantial need for the future researchers to focus on the assessment of the influence of the size of an organization on learning from failures in the implementation of innovative projects. This will be appropriate for increased understanding and illustration of the concept of management in relation to innovation seeking to address needs and prospects of the consumers within the globalized economies. List of References 1. Jay Moldenhauer‐Salazar, Liisa Välikangas, (2008) "Sun Ray's struggle to overcome innovation trauma", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 36 Iss: 3, pp.15 – 20 2. Karlsson, J. (2013). The role of HRM in innovation processes-Nurturing or constraining creativity. 3. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136. 4. Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. human relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. 5. Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T. M., Khan, M. A., & Hijazi, S. T. (2011). Transformational leadership, employee engagement and performance: Mediating effect of psychological ownership. African journal of business management, 5(17), 7391. 6. Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269. 7. Tan, C. L., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2011). Human resource management practices and organizational innovation: assessing the mediating role of knowledge management effectiveness. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 155-167. 8. Mavondo, F. T., Chimhanzi, J. and Stewart, J. (2005), ―Learning orientation and market orientation: Relationship with innovation, human resource practices and performance‖, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.39, No.11, pp. 1235-1263. 9. Tan, C. L. and Nasurdin, A. M. (2010), ―Human resource management practices and organizational innovation: An empirical study in Malaysia‖, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol.2, No.4, pp. 105-115. 10. Wan Jusoh, W. J. (2000), ―Determining key success factors in new product development: Evidence from manufacturing companies in Malaysia‖, Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 21-40. 11. Vidal, R., Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. A. (2014, January). Strategic Resilience Development: A Study Using Delphi. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (pp. 1245-1255). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 12. Tietze, F., Pieper, T., & Herstatt, C. (2014). To own or not to own: How ownership impacts user innovation–An empirical study. Technovation. 13. Valikangas et al., (2009), “Why Learning from failure isn’t easy (and what to do about it): innovation trauma at Sun Microsystems.” European Management Journal, 27 (4); 225-233. 14. Wilson, N., Wright, M., & Altanlar, A. (2013). The survival of newly-incorporated companies and founding director characteristics. International Small Business Journal, 0266242613476317. 15. Nguyen, N. (2011), How failure size affects learning in innovation. 16. Direction, S. The failure of Sun Ray: Innovation trauma is the likely cause. Strategic Direction, 25(6). 17. Gorrell, C. (2008). Five ways to transform a business. Strategy & Leadership, 36(3). 18. Terranova, C. (2006). Assessing culture at Sun Microsystems: Using a unique exercise to generate vital cultural data during an acquisition. Strategic HR Review, 5(6), 24-27. 19. Stuart, R. (1996). The trauma of organizational change. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(2), 11-16. 20. Moenkemeyer, G., Hoegl, M., & Weiss, M. (2012). Innovator resilience potential: A process perspective of individual resilience as influenced by innovation project termination. human relations, 65(5), 627-655. Read More