Are well-established firms or new entrants more likely to a) develop and/or b) adopt new technologies? What are some reasons for your choice?
Firms that are new entrants are more inclined to develop or embrace new technologies that are already existing or being utilised in the market because employing previously existing technology might help the new entrants establish a good reputation and fame.
Adoption of new technologies sometimes offers new enterprises an edge because developing a new technology may cost more money and, in any case, failing new firms leads to failure. Many businesses have demonstrated this.
Employees must be taught by specialists if they design new technology, which may cost extra money. Existing enterprises with new technology will suffer far smaller losses if they fail under any conditions.
What are some of the reasons that established firms might resist the adoption of new technology?
Enterprises may oppose the adoption of new technology for a variety of reasons, including:
The corporation cannot be assured that the new technology in which it is spending time and money will result in a worthwhile profit and corporate achievement in the future.
The failure rate for new product development can be as high as 95%; hence, producing new technology is costly and dangerous.
-It is true that adopting new technology to a corporation is costly since it is new. When a company introduces new technology, staff must be educated to use it.
Some technologies, such as migrating from one database to another, might take years to learn. company, like Kodak, decided it was too hazardous to switch from traditional film cameras to digital cameras, thus they did not incorporate the technology into their company, despite the fact that they created the digital camera.
-Their concentration on enhancing the procedures that support existing technology has reduced their capacity to recognise and respond to technological discontinuity.
-The complexity of new technology’s underlying knowledge -the extent to which enterprises must build new complementary resources -firms, like individuals, can be pioneers, early adopters, or laggards.
Why do technologies often improve faster than customer requirements? What are the advantages and disadvantages to a firm developing a technology beyond the current state of market needs?
There are two reasons why technology advances more quickly than what customers want. The first is that, for a variety of reasons, client requirements can change at any time, and businesses want to be ready in advance. Additionally, because of the fierce rivalry in the market, businesses want to get a competitive edge. As a result, the business is constantly working to advance its technology to take the lead.
If we consider the benefits of such a scenario, the corporation will benefit from being the innovator of that new technology.
If the company wants to present the technology to the market, it can obtain a patent for it. If another company wants to do the same, they must pay a fee to the parent company.
Customers associate the company positively with innovation, which causes them to develop strong emotional bonds with it.
The corporation may not recover its investment, which is the largest drawback when it comes to drawbacks. Customers might not want to learn about new technologies, or the business might be investing in unpopular things.
Customers are reluctant to accept new technologies since sales and service support are not up to the mark. For instance, the sales service for an innovation will be atrocious if, after some time, the majority of clients do not accept it.
Also Read: Could firms identify people with greater capacity for creativity or inventiveness in their hiring procedures?