J. R. Bright suggests that an innovation begins with either discovery or the perception of an environmental or market need or opportunity. This underlying distinction is reflected in the innovation literature in the distinction between technology push and market pull. The former implies that a new invention is “pushed” through the R & D, production, and sales functions onto the market without proper consideration of whether it satisfies a user need――as shown in Figure 2.8a. In contrast, an innovation based upon market pull has been developed by the R & D function in response to an identified market need as shown in Figure 2.8b. We have just distinguished between revolutionary and normal innovations. The former are major inventions and innovations for which there is no manifest need and which were created by “technology push” or the visions and achievement drives of inventor-entrepreneurs. Once this essentially Kuhnian technological revolution occurs and the latent need becomes manifest through social recognition, “market pull” stimulates the proliferation of normal incremental innovations to satisfy evolving specialist user needs. Because most innovations are incremental, it is hardly surprising that there is some evidence that innovations based upon technology-push are less likely to be successful than those based upon market-pull.
This distinction between technology-push and market-pull can be best viewed in the context of the extension of the evolutionary treatment. The technology-push sequence illustrated in Figure 2.8a is similar to that for biological organism which has experienced a genetic mutation (except that the latter occurs randomly). The success or failure of each is determined by a trial and error selection process――the first in the marketplace and the second in the ecosphere.
It is important to recognize that Herbert Spencer was mistaken in describing Darwinian biological evolution as the survival of the fittest. In fact, as the eminent biologist Kenneth Boulding has pointed out, it is more appositely described as the survival of rhe fitting, since an organisms’s survival depends upon how well it fits into its environmental niche rather upon by some undefined standard of fitness. The same can be said of a technological innovation. It does not have to be the fittest in the sense of incorporating the most up-to-date, powerful, and sophisticated features of the technology. Rather, it should be fitting in the sense that it should be designated to satisfy its end-user needs as closely as possible.
Managing Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Technology-Based Firms
by Michael J. C. Martin
2.10 Innovations as technological mutations
In Stage 1 of his treatment of the innovation process (Section 2.2), Bright suggests that an innovation begins with either discovery or the perception of an environmental or market need or opportunity. This underlying distinction is reflected in the innovation literature in the distinction between technology push and market pull. The former implies that a new invention is “pushed” through the R & D, production, and sales functions onto the market without proper consideration of whether it satisfies a user need――as shown in Figure 2.8a. In contrast, an innovation based upon market pull has been developed by the R & D function in response to an identified market need as shown in Figure 2.8b. We have just distinguished between revolutionary and normal innovations. The former are major inventions and innovations (such as radio and the computer) for which there is no manifest need and which were created by “technology push” or the visions and achievement drives of inventor-entrepreneurs such as Marconi. Once this essentially Kuhnian technological revolution occurs and the latent need becomes manifest through social recognition, “market pull” stimulates the proliferation of normal incremental innovations to satisfy evolving specialist user needs, as reflected in the steep rise of the S-curve in Figure 2.5. Because most innovations are incremental, it is hardly surprising that there is some evidence that innovations based upon technology-push are less likely to be successful than those based upon market-pull.
This distinction between technology-push and market-pull can be best viewed in the context of the extension of the evolutionary treatment. The technology-push sequence illustrated in Figure 2.8a is similar to that for biological organism which has experienced a genetic mutation (except that the latter occurs randomly). The success or failure of each is determined by a trial and error selection process――the first in the marketplace and the second in the ecosphere. Li invokes the same analogy. He compares the innovation process with the fundamental building block of biological evolution— the DNA double helix (see Figure 2.9). One spiral of the helix constitutes the technology-push or ensemble of scientific and engineering skills, while the other constitutes the market,pull or ensemble of entrepreneurial, managerial, and marketing skills which are required. The notion of technology- market synergy introduced above is synonymous with the judicous synthesis of Li’s helices. Thus, once we view technological as well as scientific growth as a La, marckian evolutionary process, we may view an invention which leads to a technological innovation as corresponding to a genetic mutation. Indeed, the eminent ethologist Konrad Lorenz made the same analogy when describing the genetic mutation process:
In employing this analogy, it is important to recognize that Herbert Spencer was mistaken in describing Darwinian biological evolution as the survival of the fittest. In fact, as the eminent biologist Kenneth Boulding has pointed out, it is more appositely described as the survival of rhe fitting, since an organisms’s survival depends upon how well it fits into its environmental niche rather upon by some undefined standard of fitness. The same can be said of a technological innovation. It does not have to be the fittest in the sense of incorporating the most up-to-date, powerful, and sophisticated features of the technology. Rather, it should be fitting in the sense that it should be designated to satisfy its end-user needs as closely as possible.
Push–pull strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push%E2%80%93pull_strategy
_____________________
Technology push
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_push
_____________________