Reaction to technological progress and the responsive behavior of an enterprise involves an understanding of global development trends and an adequate assessment of the limits of capabilities for existing technologies.

Improving technology parameters has certain limits. These boundaries are manifested in the process of technology development over time, as well as in the behavior of technical characteristics depending on the costs of its improvement. They're called technological limits.

The limits of technology are determined by the natural laws on which it is based, and are manifested in the inability to improve the technical level of technology (product and its quality) and obtain economic returns, i.e. further improvement of a new technology once introduced does not provide an increase in the effect perceived by the consumer.

Measuring technical efficiency or technical level should be based on those parameters that provide the greatest customer value, rather than those related to purely technical achievements. This potential is exhausted as more and more new capabilities are developed in the course of technical development and design within the framework of a specific technological solution.

Graphically, the relationship between an increase in the technical level (technical utility, productivity) and the resources spent for these purposes is described by the Gompertz curve or a special case called the logistic curve (S-shaped), or technological trajectory (Fig. 5).

Rice. 5. S-curve

When describing the stages of technology development, the S-shaped curve reflects the inception, intensive growth and gradual achievement of the stage of full maturity of a technological process or product. The initial costs of developing an innovation at the initial stage of its life cycle provide low returns. This means that the increase in results is insignificant. Then there is a rapid increase in the result compared to the costs, but then there is a progressive slowdown in the return. The advanced growth stage corresponds to the situation when costs are between points A And With, i.e. investment costs are high, but their returns are also noticeable.

At the maturity stage, investments provide lower returns than at the growth stage. They are aimed, first of all, at improving technological processes, implementing and advertising modifying innovations.

To understand whether a process is in decline, we should look again at the S-curve (Figure 6). Moreover, it is necessary to compare the curves of this technology and the one that replaces it and is competing.

Rice. 6. Technological gap: Legend:

1 – old technological trajectory; 2 – new technological trajectory;

TU – technological level; C/W – costs/time

The divergence between the two S-curves represents a technology gap. Technological gap – this is the distance between the performance parameters of the replaced and the replacing technologies, which cannot be reduced by increasing the costs of developing the lagging technology.

In this case, the results do not mean profit or sales volume, but indicators characterizing the level of technology parameters and product quality (for example, the level of metal extraction from mined ore, gasoline consumption per 100 km for a car, etc.).

In conditions of dynamic competition, a company’s taking into account its own position on the technological trajectory and comparing it with the positions of competitors is necessary to select the strategies being formed and predict competition. The technological gap poses a significant threat to the economic well-being of the company and devalues ​​its accumulated organizational, managerial, production, sales and personnel potential.

The challenge is to recognize the technology gap in time and redirect investments from the development of technology I to the development of technology II (Fig. 7).

Rice. 7. Technological gap (according to achieved results)

To overcome technological gaps, research is needed to determine the position of the company on the corresponding S-shaped curves for interchangeable technologies, and to determine changes in this position in the near future. This change makes it possible to predict and program the retirement and restructuring of the production structure and necessary equipment, and make adjustments to the personnel training system. Timely transition to new technologies is the key to the payback and profitability of innovations, including by meeting new market needs. At the same time, the solutions used must meet the criteria of economic rationality from the point of view of social needs, as well as the technical and economic capabilities of the enterprise.

Scientific and technical progress

INTRODUCTION

Mark D. Dibner

A lot is said about the importance of scientific and technological progress (STP) for the activities of companies and the state, but specific activities in this direction are carried out much less frequently. In real life, the ability to compete in the global economy depends on having an advantage over competitors, and this, in turn, is built on the basis of modern technology.

The United States leads in many areas of basic research conducted at universities. Yet the discoveries of fundamental science do not guarantee future returns on invested capital.

The company must introduce new technologies and, using them, produce products for the market. Having won a place among competitors, the company must remain at the level of modern technology, produce products and sell them successfully.

Not everyone follows these basic principles intuitively; a lot of learning is required. However, not everyone has the necessary training in the field of managing scientific and technological progress. Very few business schools include science and technology management as a required course, and other schools do not even offer it as a elective.

Mark D. DibnerDoctor of Science, Director of the Institute of Biotechnological Information, located in the Research Triangle Park. He is also an adjunct professor of management of technology and entrepreneurship at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business.

tatively. Line managers do not always easily cope with issues of managing scientific and technical equipment. Management of scientific and technological progress does not happen on its own. It must be "built" into the company's strategy. This may not be easy if the company is focused on short-term results, reducing costs, and maintaining its accounting records to show quarterly profits. Scientific and technological advances do not occur regularly, at regular intervals. Sometimes it can take several years before a company starts turning a profit. The R&D department often does not fit well with the corporate culture and is an expense that can easily be removed from the budget because it does not lead to short-term results.

The science of scientific and technological progress management is difficult to master; in this area there are still more questions than answers. Each technology has its own development cycle, many alternative approaches, and varying degrees of government oversight or regulation. This is further complicated by the fact that technology fits differently into different corporate cultures.

It is, however, necessary to have an idea of ​​the issues that should be reflected in the strategic planning of companies. Understanding the basics of new technology development, limited and

The discontinuous nature of this development, as well as how to increase the innovativeness of R&D activities, can provide an organization with valuable experience in achieving competitive success.

The materials presented in the chapters of this section will encourage the reader to think about many questions. These reflections, in turn, can lead to an analysis of the company's management strengths and weaknesses. Does your company have a technical policy? If so, does it extend to other areas of the company? Does it enable the company to engage in long-term R&D projects? Is contact established between the R&D, marketing and production departments? Does the R&D team understand its place in the company’s activities? Does the company create a climate conducive to innovation? Does the company have information about world scientific discoveries? Does the company take advantage of government research contracts? Does the company use strategic alliances with other companies and university researchers to increase the return on every R&D dollar? Is the company able to compete on a global scale?

Success depends to a large extent on thoughtful answers to these questions. In this section, the reader will find information that will help him form an overall picture of these answers.

COMPANIES' READINESS FOR

TECHNOLOGICAL

CHANGES

Richard N. Foster, McKinsey & Company

On Friday, December 13, 1907, at dawn, when the Thomas W. Lauson hit rocks and sank in the English Channel, the era of sailing ships for commercial navigation ended. This vessel, capable of making 22 knots per hour in good winds, was built to withstand the competition of steamships, which were gaining an increasing share of the transport of goods. But in order to achieve greater speed from the sailing vessel, the designer was forced to sacrifice its maneuverability. The Lauzon, with seven masts and a length of 404 feet, was so cumbersome that in a gale, its helmsman could not avoid colliding with underwater rocks. After this, no one tried to design faster sailing ships for transporting goods. Steamships began to play a dominant role in maritime transport. The Fall River Ship and Engine Building Company, which built the Lauzon, was forced to switch to another type of business activity.

In 1947, Procter & Gamble introduced the first synthetic laundry detergent, Tide. It contains phosphate compounds

solutions that have more powerful cleaning properties than traditional natural cleansers. Tide took the lead, leaving behind its main competitor, Liver Brothers.

In May 1971, the National Cash Register Company, based in Dayton, Ohio, announced that it was writing off a $140 million batch of new cash registers because they could not be sold. Soon after, she fired thousands of workers and the managing director. Over the next four years, the company's share price fell from $45 to $14. Why did this happen? The electromechanical devices produced by the company could not compete with new electronic models of such devices, the production of which was cheaper, they were easier to use and more reliable.

Based on the example of these and hundreds of other companies that were leaders in their industries, they suddenly saw their sustainable prosperity disappear under the onslaught of technological progress. They failed to anticipate radical shifts in technology, to evaluate their

consequences and take timely measures to maintain leadership.

Such failures stem from the basic assumption that leaders make when running their companies: tomorrow will be about the same as today. Without this confidence, it would be impossible for them to manage production quickly. But when developing and implementing a company's strategy, such a premise turns out to be fatal. The phenomenon of technological progress and its results - commercial innovation and competition - mean that the strategies of almost all companies, be it shipbuilding, cash registers or laundry detergent, must assume that, ultimately, tomorrow will be completely different from today. that is, the process will be interrupted - there will be a break in technological continuity. And in most cases, by the time shifts in established technological processes begin to have a visible impact on the market, the pace of this attack will be so fast that only those who are best prepared for this attack will withstand it.

In contrast to the legions of victims, companies that have been leaders in their industries for many years - IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Corning, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson - believe that technological shifts are inevitable, manageable, and vital to improving shareholder wealth. They also believe that the eventual winners will be the “advancers,” that is, the innovators who exploit technological discontinuities and seek to strike a balance between being the “advancers” and actively defending their existing businesses.

S-CURVE

Understanding the dynamics of competition that lead some companies to collapse and enable others to remain leaders in their industries for a long time requires the adoption of three basic principles: the S-curve, the gap in the technological chain and the advantage.

entities that have "advancing". Two other ideas are based on the S-curve principle. The curve graphically represents the relationship between the cumulative effort to improve a product or process and the productivity achieved through investment (Figure 7-1). Progress is slow at first. while scientists are looking for a solution to the problem. Then, when the right solution is found and put into place, the pace of progress increases sharply. Over time, the pace slows again as each new increase in productivity becomes more difficult and expensive. Despite the effort, sailing ships don't sail much faster, natural detergents don't make laundry cleaner, and electromechanical cash registers don't get much cheaper (to make or operate).

Rice. 7-1. S-curve

The S-curve (also called the logistic curve or Gompertz curve) takes shape depending on the learning methods and physical abilities of people. To explore the unknown, people experiment, just as children try different combinations of pedaling, turning the handlebars, and shifting the weight when learning to ride a bicycle. With each experiment, the amount of knowledge increases, but the process, unfortunately, remains ineffective. This is why the bottom of the curve is so flat.

When the basic principles are discovered through trial and error, the effectiveness of learning increases dramatically. Rebbe

A nok who already knows how to balance on a bicycle very quickly learns the art of riding in spirals at high speeds, climbing steep slopes and overcoming obstacles. Every hour he spends riding results in a higher level of productivity, so the curve becomes steeper.

Then the cyclist discovers physical limitations - the mechanical productivity of the bicycle and the physiological productivity of the cyclist decreases. Additional efforts - using thinner tires, improving the physiological state of a person - can help, but only slightly. The returns from investments made during the learning period diminish and the S-curve becomes flat again. The only way a person can achieve much greater success is to bypass the physical limits of cycling (i.e. move down to the beginning of a new S-curve) by investing in new technology, such as a car.

Scientists and engineers experiment with varying success overcoming difficulties, begin to move forward noticeably faster as soon as they acquire fundamental knowledge, but eventually run into the physical limits of nature. There. where this has not yet happened, there remains scope for greater efficiency. For example, the development of the process of creating an artificial heart is proceeding at a fairly rapid pace, since the technologies on which it depends have not yet reached physical limits. It took a rival firm more than a decade to develop an artificial heart that could keep a patient alive for up to four weeks; the result of the work of another ten years was a device that kept a person alive for sixteen weeks; the next third ten years enabled the patient to live thirty weeks, that is, to achieve an efficiency eight times greater than in the first ten years.

The exact opposite happens with mechanical watches. Between 1700 and 1850, the thickness of watch cases decreased from 1"/2 inches to approx.

measured "/4 inches. Most models of modern wristwatches are approximately the same thickness. In fact, watch manufacturers reached the physical limit of thinness 150 years ago and since then have focused efforts on other parameters of the effectiveness of their products, such as reliability, ease of use and cost.

When constructing an S-curve related to technology, the question arises regarding the level and timing of investment in R&D. Failure to ramp up the rate of improvement quickly enough at the beginning of the curve can lead to the loss of funding or early abandonment of the new technology. Conversely, additional investment may be required because of inflated estimates of the likely pace of new product development or because of a failure to take into account the efforts of other technological actors in the industry that are generating knowledge that is available to those who want it. A curve that becomes steeper signals a race to invest among competitors, since every extra dollar invested in a given technology has the potential to dramatically improve product efficiency. The maturing S-curve is especially important for companies that are closely associated with a given technology. In almost all cases, companies invest more than they need due to the inertia of R&D programs: they are easier to start than to close. If the steep curve begins to flatten, it is time to change the direction of product or process improvement efforts by looking at other parameters, such as aiming to make watches more durable rather than thinner.

BREAK OF TECHNOLOGICAL CONTINUITY

Drawing a single S-curve does not answer the strategic questions that constantly arise: Which technology should be preferred? Sails or steam power? Electromechanical or electronic cash register

ratham? Natural or artificial detergents? To get answers to these and other similar questions, it is necessary to construct a whole family of S-curves that will show the approaching break in continuity.

Although one technology usually dominates the market, it rarely fully and best satisfies all customer requirements. There are almost always competing technologies, each with its own S-curve. It often happens that several new technologies are combined to replace an old technology. Consider, for example, how CD players and digital audio tape players compete with traditional cassette and record players for share of the domestic stereo market. A discontinuity is represented at the intersection points of the S-curves of old and new technologies, where one technology replaces the other and fills an order for a competing product.

Technology can come in several forms. In some cases it is a specific process that produces a specific product.

Or it could be the process of making several types of products. When considering services or products that rely on thousands of technologies, such as air travel or automobiles, only one or a few technologies are the most significant at any given time. It is she or they that have the greatest impact on the functioning of a given product and should be considered.

The possibilities of using the S-curve and the importance of understanding the discontinuity of technological continuity as a result of innovation are demonstrated by the history of tire cord (Fig. 7-2). Cord performance parameters are quite complex as they include factors such as cord strength, heat resistance and fatigue. The combination of these factors gives tires the properties that buyers are interested in - smooth ride, durability, protection against ruptures, and low cost. The diagram recreates performance parameters that meet customer requirements (pressure maintenance) and meet technical factors (e.g. stability

fatigue resistance), which are weighted by value criteria according to customer requirements. In this case, the overall efficiency parameter is correlated with the optimal properties of cotton, since it was cotton that served as the material for the first samples of tire cord.

As with all S-curves, the measure is cumulative R&D effort expressed in dollars invested. Efforts vary over time as different companies start and stop R&D programs and fund them at different levels. Because most companies do not keep track of the efforts they have put into a technology, they often try to plot a curve of technological progress versus time and find that the predictions fall short. The problem here is not the difficulty of predicting technological progress, since we have seen the relative stability of the S-curve, but rather the inability to monitor and predict the investments of all the major participants in a given industry. To construct a family of S-curves, it is usually necessary to reconstruct and predict the efforts of the major players in a given industry based on their R&D expenditures or the more direct measure of the number of years spent developing a particular technology.

The first synthetic material for cord was viscose, the leaders of which were the American Viscose and DuPont companies. Compared to cotton, it had greater strength and made it possible to produce thinner tires. In addition, viscose is not subject to rotting, so the tires lasted longer. The initial $65 million that American Viscose, DuPont and others spent developing viscose yielded benefits seven times greater than with cotton. The kingdom of viscose began on the market.

DuPont's signature cord, nylon, has slightly better performance than rayon and has become the second dominant synthetic material.

tire cord The first $30 million that DuPont spent developing nylon was far more efficient than the investment in rayon and eight times more efficient than cotton.

Then polyester came along and there was a radical shift in the cord manufacturing process. Polyester, which was produced in part by American Viscose and Silanize, had a huge advantage over nylon from the start and a steeper S-curve. The first $50 million spent on improving polyester yielded twice the benefit of nylon and sixteen times the benefit of cotton.

The competitive implications of this shift were profound. The American Viscose Company was hampered by patents from further development of nylon, so it continued to develop viscose and polyester, producing almost a monopoly on rayon. Some time after rayon's market share had dropped to 20 percent, and despite tire manufacturers' claims that polyester was the tire cord material of the future, American Viscose management maintained that the best cord came from rayon. As can be seen from Fig.7-2. Much of the last $40 million that American Viscose and others spent on improving the properties of viscose was effectively thrown away and made very few changes in efficiency. The same thing happened with most of the capital investment spent on the production of products such as Super 2 Viscose and Super 3 Viscose. Due to worsening financial results, the American Viscose company was acquired by another company.

DuPont didn't know where nylon was on the S-curve, and its lack of understanding was costly in terms of both wasted investment and lost opportunity. The last $75 million or so spent by DuPont on developing nylon cord could not and indeed did not make much difference.

Aimed at maximizing the return on their investment in nylon research and production, Du Pont did not invest enough in polyester-related research. Five years later, at the end of the 60s, sales of tire cord grew very slightly, while the Silaniz company captured more than 75% of the market. DuPont lost a golden opportunity to gain a competitive lead, an opportunity that it could have had if it had more accurately predicted the nylon-polyester S-curve shift and had the courage to pursue polyester at the expense of nylon.

ADVANTAGE OF "ATCHERS"

The tire cord example highlights the third core idea needed to understand competitive dynamics: the advancer's advantage. Many times, in industries as diverse as packaged foods and computers, there have been examples where a leader in one generation of technology has lost out to a younger, smaller company that is using next-generation technology to "assault" a market. At first glance, this model seems to contradict intuition. It seems that leaders have a huge advantage over newcomers and "joiners"

"new": have more solid capital, higher technical qualifications, better customer knowledge, strong market positions. It would seem that the removal of leaders, just like the removal of qualified "defenders" on the battlefield, would require an advantage in resources in the ratio of three to one.

However, in times of transition to new technologies, “advancers” have their own advantages. First, they have higher R&D productivity because they work on the steep part of the curve, while the defenders are stuck at a point of declining profits. When Silaniz began investing heavily in improving polyester tire cord, its research was about five times more productive than DuPont's research into nylon cord.

Secondly, the “attackers” also have an advantage in research results. If the productivity of research determines technical efficiency as a function of the application of effort, then the results of research determine profit as a function of technical efficiency, that is, the economic value of technical modernization. Productivity multiplied by results is equal to the profit from investment in research and development (Fig. 7-3), which is an overall criterion for the value of a technical strategy.

Rice. 7-3. Return on capital invested in research and development

Research results are not a ratio that can be predicted immediately, like productivity. They are influenced by changing consumer preferences, industrial economics and the combined strategies of all participants. It is especially difficult to calculate results when it comes to new technologies, which can sometimes give zero results. This was the case when detergent manufacturers invested a lot of money in developing a product for a brighter optical effect.

Clothing literally became "whiter than white": brighter when measured by laboratory instruments, but not as bright when perceived by the consumer with the naked eye. Since these brightness enhancers did not provide any improvement that the buyer would be willing to pay for, the results of the research were null (and could even be negative, since adding these brightness enhancers to laundry detergents increased the cost of producing the powders).

The attackers have a clear advantage in obtaining results because they have invested little or nothing in the industry being attacked. Industry leaders are tied hand and foot by their investments in operating technology - factories, franchised products, employee qualifications, etc. Like DuPont with tire cord, they will conclude that the introduction of new technologies will have such a significant impact on reducing prices and increasing production costs associated with the manufacture of current products that the combined effect of using existing and new technologies will be less than if they continued their traditional business.

Finally, "advantages" gain real advantage from the arrogance of leaders who act as "defenders" of the technology of today. "Advocates" usually assume that an evolutionary approach to technology is sufficient, even if this approach cannot withstand the large and rapid changes caused by the shifts. in the technological process. They

assume that economic indicators - market share, margins - will warn them in advance of impending danger. But by the time the offensive is reflected in these indicators, it will be too late to change course, because the transition to new technologies has already gone too far. After ten years of competition in the American tire market, the market share of radial tires reached only 30%, and this hardly indicated their dominance in the market. But over the next three years, they literally drove other types of tires out of the market. Another typical premise of advocates is that they know what consumers want, which competitors to watch closely, and which technologies pose the greatest risks. During technological shifts, these assumptions can be misleading, as consumers will be offered benefits they previously could not have imagined, and small competitors will be able to come to the fore and rely on technologies completely different from those which “defenders” are familiar with. Arrogance does not allow “defenders” to act according to the situation.

PROBLEMS OF "DEFENDERS"

The potential contribution of companies' R&D activities increases through the use of new scientific discoveries discussed in various forums and publications, as well as those developed by the companies' own employees.

Since the core of any technological shift has been a change in the company's core business - say, instead of cutting sails, it now installs engines - the defenders or the attackers must find the most graceful way to make a radical change. This could mean hiring outsiders, acquiring other companies, or sending employees to retrain or retire. Preparing for the shifts in many cases represents changes in corporate culture, and since the strong culture that develops in "defender" companies is likely to

"swallow or eliminate the nascent culture of the "advancers", it is necessary for these groups to be organizationally independent. Even the structures of the two organizations are likely to be different: stable, established companies are best suited to a functional organization, while new ones enterprises - project-oriented matrix structure. Differences and headaches for leaders.

which are being “attacked” will continue to intensify.

But there is every reason to believe that similar problems will arise for an increasing number of companies. Shifts in technology occur more often than we realize, and their frequency continues to increase. The organizations that ride the crests of the waves of technological change rather than run to the shore are the ones. who understand the implications of S-curves and the need for transformation.

TRAINING AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

Since the beginning of the 80s, the main object of management in global industry has been the choice of strategy in the field of introducing new technologies. As soon as one technology in the industry is replaced by another, the problem of their relationship becomes a matter of the most important strategic choice for the enterprise: keep(and for how long?) traditional technology, due to which part of the output turns out to be costly and obsolete, or go over to a new one.

In Fig. shows an S-shaped curve reflecting the relationship between the costs associated with developing and improving a product or process and the results obtained from the investment. The curve is called S-shaped because when you plot the results on a graph, you usually end up with a curved line that resembles the letter S, but extends to the right at the top and to the left at the bottom.

At the level of enterprise management, it is recommended to approach the assessment of the technology used and determine the moment when it is necessary to invest in the development and implementation of a new one. It is based on building a relationship between the costs of improving a process or product and the results obtained. It is depicted as a logistic S-shaped curve (Fig. 2). Results do not mean profit or sales volume, but indicators characterizing the level of technology parameters and product quality.

Rice. 2. Technology gaps: S-curves almost invariably appear in pairs, indicating the substitution of one technology for another.

(expenses)

This dependence reflects the inception, spasmodic growth and gradual achievement of the maturity stage of a technological process or product. Initial investments in technology (product) development provide very limited results. Then, as key knowledge is accumulated and used, results improve quickly. Finally, there comes a point when the technical capabilities of a technology have been exhausted and progress in this area becomes increasingly difficult and expensive, and additional investment in funds only marginally improves results (the peak of the S-curve). This occurs due to the fact that technologies have their limits, determined either by the life limit of one or several of their constituent elements, or, as is more often the case, all of them at once. Proximity to such a limit means that all existing opportunities for improving the situation have been exhausted and further improvement in this area becomes burdensome, since the associated costs grow at a faster rate than the benefits from them. This limit is determined by the natural laws on which the technology is based.

The ability of managers to recognize the limits of the technology being used is critical to the success or failure of a company, because the limit is the surest clue to determining when to begin developing a new technology. For example, the limit to paper printing as a technology for transmitting information is predetermined by the advent of electronic technology, with which in the future information can be transmitted more efficiently and at lower cost.

Periods of transition from one group of products or processes to another are called technological gaps. A gap arises between the S-shaped curves due to the formation of a new S-shaped curve, but not on the basis of the same knowledge that underlay the old curve, but on the basis of completely new knowledge. For example, the transition from vacuum tubes to semiconductors, from propeller-driven airplanes to jets, from thermal power plants to nuclear power plants, from magnetic tape to compact discs, etc. -all these are examples of bridging technological gaps. And all of them allow us to squeeze out industry leading firms.

If the limit is reached, a “technological gap” occurs and further progress becomes impossible. To overcome it, it is necessary to move to new technologies, products (services). This requires significant costs, often much higher than the costs of current production improvement, and can take a long time.

The reached limit of any technology does not mean the absence of another that can more effectively solve consumer problems. New technology has its own S-shaped curve. The gap between the two curves represents the technology gap, where one technology replaces another.

The difficulty in recognizing the approaching limit of existing technology and making a decision to switch to a new one lies in the fact that, as a rule, the transition to a new technology seems less economical than maintaining the old one.

Organizations that do not want or do not have the ability to make large investments are trying in every possible way to delay this moment, believing that they are well aware of the needs of customers, the capabilities of competitors, the laws of technology evolution, and therefore will be able to react to the situation at the right time and maneuver as necessary.

However, in the context of the revolutionary development of technology and technology, maneuver can only gain time, but not win, and underestimating this can lead the organization to serious difficulties. It is also not always possible to correctly determine the moment of the onset of a technological gap, since most often they try to do this on the basis of economic indicators that do not adequately reflect the state of technology.

For those who have not grasped the idea of ​​a limit in the S-curve, change is caught off guard, creeping up behind them. This happens so frequently and inevitably that some authors call the S-curve the blindness curve.

Approaching the breaking point requires the organization to take measures to update the main directions of its activities. But even if things are going well and the organization is on the rise, it still must innovate if it wants to achieve or maintain a leading position in its field. Therefore, the update process is essentially continuous and is one of the most important management objects.

This is not a theory. Companies have resorted to such approaches, either explicitly or implicitly, to gain an edge in the competition. Thus, with the advent of compact discs, which provide a much more natural sound than magnetic tape, the company Sony and a number of other companies are successfully conquering the recording market. The Japanese have gained an advantage over the Swiss thanks to electronic watches. IBM took it from the company Smith crown leadership in office technology by developing the electric typewriter, which later evolved into a computer-based word processor. Manufacturers of electronic cameras that allow images to be recorded onto magnetic media are able to challenge the currently dominant chemical imaging technology. Moreover, manufacturers of optical-based computers are able to challenge such manufacturers of electronic computers as IBM And Digital equipment, and manufacturers of a new material called gallium arsenide could significantly displace silicon semiconductor manufacturers in the market. In banking, the trend towards crowding out territorial branches (banks) may be strengthened by the use of electronic payments at home using smart cards, that is, credit cards with a microprocessor.

Due to the development of computer technology and communications, banking, trade and the service sector are already undergoing dramatic changes. Banks, using electronics, have made it possible in the trade sector to replace cashiers with automatic machines. The magnetic tape on bank (credit) cards, replaced by an integrated circuit, makes it possible to reflect all transactions on the client's account, and not just provide access to it, which allows you to immediately see the status of the account and make purchases at the department store. This list can be continued endlessly. The question is when and where these changes will occur.

S-curves almost invariably come in pairs. The gap between a pair of curves represents the gap within which one technology replaces another. This was the case when semiconductors replaced vacuum tubes. In reality, one single technology can rarely satisfy all consumer needs. There are almost always competing technologies, each with their own S-curve. Companies that have learned to bridge technology gaps are investing in research, including fundamental research, to know where they are on their respective S-curves and what to expect in the future.

Bridging technological gaps has occurred frequently in history, but economists are convinced that waves of major innovations associated with bridging technological gaps have occurred more or less regularly over the past 250 years—in roughly 50-year cycles. In the first few years of the cycle, new technological potential is accumulated. Then there comes a period when far-reaching innovations gain the greatest momentum, and then during their commercial exploitation the pace of events gradually slows down.

This pattern was formulated by the Russian economist N. Kondratiev. In 1930, he was supported by the German economist I. Schumpeter. He showed that the first wave lasted from 1790 to 1840. and it was based mainly on new technologies in the textile industry, using the capabilities of coal and steam energy. The second wave covered 1840-1890. and is directly related to the development of railway transport and mechanization of production. The third wave (1890-1940) was based on electricity, advances in chemistry and internal combustion engines. The current fourth wave (1940 to 1990s) is based on electronics, but the pace of innovation may not slow down as it did between previous cycles. American economist K. Freeman believes that biotechnology will become at least part of the base of the fifth Kondratiev wave, which may already have begun.

In the face of current and future changes, leaders must rethink their approach to technology and develop approaches that help bridge technological gaps during periods of wave growth in innovation processes.

"In order to S-curve had practical significance, technological change must be brewing.

In other words, one competitor must be approaching the limit of its technology while others - perhaps with less experience - are exploring alternative technologies with higher limits. And this is almost always the case. I call periods of transition from one group of products or processes to another technological gaps.

There is a gap between S-shaped curves and a new curve begins to form. But not on the basis of the same knowledge that underlies the old curve, but on the basis of completely new and different knowledge.

For example, the transition from electronic lamas to semiconductors, from propeller planes to jet aircraft, from natural ones to synthetic detergents and fibers, from textiles to paper diapers, from gramophone records to magnetic tape and compact discs, from carbonated cola drinks. - to carbonated juices and even the transition from traditional tennis rackets to “Prince” rackets with an enlarged, “reactive” head. These are all examples of technology gaps. And all of them allowed them to squeeze out industry leaders.

Technological disruptions have always occurred and will continue to occur with increasing frequency. The scientific knowledge underlying products and processes is growing exponentially in fields as diverse as quantum physics, surface chemistry, cell biology, mathematics and the structure of knowledge itself.

In addition, we are becoming more aware every day of the process of innovation - how it works and how it can be made to work better. Both of these phenomena are not new, but never before have they interacted so closely to create the explosion of knowledge and change that we are witnessing today.

Therefore, it seems to me that before the year 2000, 80% of the manufacturing industries and a significant part of the service sector will experience decisive technological shifts. We live in an age of technological disruption and an age where industry leaders face the greatest risk. The consequences of technological change are almost always brutal for the defender. […]

To neutralize the attackers' advantage, companies must understand the concept S-curve and technological limits, because it will tell management when an attack might occur and what its consequences might be. In this way, it will help defenders anticipate and cope with the challenge. […]

Climb up S-curve- almost the same as climbing a mountain. There are often warning signs indicating the steepness of the mountain - 10%, 30%, etc. The slope of a graph can be interpreted in the same way as the steepness of a mountain. The steeper the curve, the more effective the process. Therefore, when characterizing the location on the curve of results and efforts, it is convenient to talk about the angle of inclination or the effectiveness of technical efforts.

At the beginning of the curve, significant effort is required to produce results. Once the training is completed, the results are significant at low cost. But usually this does not last very long - perhaps several years. At a certain stage, we begin to approach the limit for this technology and slow down. The question then becomes whether there is another way to provide consumers with the services they need. Is there another technology that, although not yet developed, may ultimately prove more powerful than the existing, increasingly resistant to improvement?

However, too often these kinds of questions do not arise. Traditional management wisdom is based on the implicit assumption that the more effort put in, the better the results achieved. In fact, this is only the case in the first half. S-curve. For the other half, this assumption is wrong. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is difficult to comprehend what is happening, because most companies do not take into account the technological productivity of costs.

S-curves almost invariably go in pairs. The space between a pair of curves represents the gap—the point where one technology replaces another. This was the case when semiconductors replaced vacuum tubes.

In reality, a single technology can rarely satisfy all consumer needs. There are almost always competing technologies, each with its own S-curve. So in reality, three or four or more technologies may participate in the battle, with some of them defending and others attacking. Often several technologies are at war with each other, seeking to displace an older technology from a certain segment of the market - for example, CD players compete with more advanced decks and state-of-the-art turntables for share of the consumer radio market.”

Richard Foster, Updating production: attackers win, M., Progress, 1987, p. 37-39 and 85-86.

A “technological gap” is a period or section of transition from one technology to a qualitatively different one (or from one product to a qualitatively different one that satisfies the same need). Correctly predicting the moment of the onset of a technological gap is extremely important both at the micro level (for an individual company) and at the macro level for the industry or the state as a whole.

With the advent of the modern stage of the scientific and technological revolution, firms in highly developed countries entered, in the words of P. Drucker, into the “age of discontinuity,” i.e. The frequency of technological disruptions is increasing. New conditions of competition are emerging. All this requires new approaches from managers to ensure the successful functioning of the company. An offensive innovation strategy is most appropriate for this situation. True, in this case, success largely depends on the intuition of managers, their ability to take risks, and on solving many other organizational and management problems.

Recent decades provide many examples when technological gaps meant the disappearance of not only individual types of products, but also entire industries and led to the fall and even bankruptcy of some firms and the rise of others.

Technological gaps are one of the most serious threats today, which even the most prosperous and prosperous companies cannot ignore. The increasing frequency of technological disruptions poses a number of complex problems for managers related to both the organization of organizational activities and other aspects of the functioning of the company.

Initiators of innovation work in conditions of increased risk, but with the successful implementation of innovations of a proactive nature, they have a margin of “economic strength”, which is expressed in the presence of a portfolio of new competitive products that are lower compared to average unit production costs.

An offensive strategy is extremely complex in terms of gaining and maintaining positions and is associated with risk. It justifies itself when choosing a suitable promising area of ​​production, where the enterprise concentrates all its efforts (resources, scientific and technical potential). The correct choice of area and area of ​​activity (market segment) makes it possible to strategically plan a breakthrough with new products in a certain segment and overcome the barrier of high costs for implementing innovations. In this market segment, for a relatively short period (2-3 years), the enterprise needs to dominate and maintain leading positions. Subsequently, when competing enterprises strive to win a wide range of consumers of these goods, it is necessary to reorient themselves either to other possible innovations, or to enter into a struggle for sales in conditions of fierce competition. The main strategy of offensive market actions of firms that achieve an overwhelming advantage in the modern market is a focus on superiority in innovative activities over their competitors and the constant increase in this gap.

To determine the place a company occupies in the market and develop an appropriate strategy for innovative development, an approach based on the theory of the product life cycle is used. The following stages may be taken into account: development, growth, maturity and decline. For an innovation strategy aimed at developing new products and technologies, the following correspondence can be established.