CASE STUDIES

TECHNOLOGICAL
MANAGEMENT.
 LESSONS from XEROX: the BEGINNING:
• This case describes the Anatomy of Innovation
Process.
• Demonstrates the difference between
scientific discoveries and Technological
Innovation.
• The Inventor- Carlson ,an ordinary man had just
a vision, an empirical approach , a passion for
his idea and persistence to lead to such a
major technological Innovation .
• Battelle supported this idea with a Process,
relevant Knowledge, talent and Scientific
approach.
• Haloid’s Wilson brought Entrepreneurship to
the Innovation by funding the research and
protecting the Technology by a Trade name.
• Financial support by third parties/ Govern Bodies
(US Army) is the catalyst that propels new ideas
towards Development and Marketing.
• For Revolutionary Innovations, Market surveys
and predictions can not be trusted to give
accurate demand forecast . ( Xerox 914 Copy
Machine sold 200,000 as against prediction of
3000 nos. only. It was thought to be only a
Product concept).
• From first Xerox machine of 1949 to Xerox 914 it
took several Innovations to bring it to
acceptable product in marketplace.
• Technological Innovation coupled with
Marketing Innovation ( a leasing & pricing
structure by Peter McColough) facilitated
Customer acceptance of the Product.
• Once the technology was well developed,
accepted by the Market and diffused, a huge
explosion in the copies produced and sold
followed.
• The success of an Innovation depends on its
marketability and customer satisfaction.
• From the prototype to the customer’s
acceptance of the Product may warrant
multiple generation of innovations.
• Innovations one or more champions to create
them and introduce them to the market.
• Successful Innovations need a combinations of
factors including Vision, persistence, technical
skill, business acumen, good intuitive sense
and of course good luck.
A MODEL FOR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION IN
BIOMEDICAL DEVICES :

Generation of Ideas

Testing feasibility of Ideas

Product design, prototype Designing the manufacturing

Develoment & Testing Process.

Regulatory approval &

Patenting.

Production

Marketing

Customer
 GENERATION OF IDEAS:

Intrapreneurs
Biomedical Industry
R & D Depts. TECHNOLOGY
PUSH
University &
Researchers
Research labs

Entrepreneurs
Generation
Of
Physicians Ideas

Healthcare
Professionals
Healthcare Sector Biomedical
Engineers. MARKET PULL

Patents.

Biomedical Marketing &

Industry Sales.
 FEASIBILITY OF IDEAS :
Venture Capital
MARKET
CAPITAL
POTENTIAL

Funding Agencies

FEASIBILITY
OF IDEAS

Industrial Alliances

MANUFACTURING PROFESSIONAL Govt. Programs

REQUIREMENTS ADVICE

Universities &
Research Labs
PRODUCT DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT& TESTING.

COST / FUNCTION
COST
RELATIONSHIP

PRODUCT DESIGN,
PROTOTYPE SIMPLICITY &
TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT & EASE OF USE
TESTING.

QUALITY EXPANDABILITY
 LESSONS from XEROX – AFTER THE INVENSION.
• Lack of a committed Champion in MOT could lead
to its downfall.
• Wrong Vision statement inconsistent with its
core competence would take the organization to
a wrong direction spelling disaster.
• Excellent Product innovation may fail due to
proper marketing effort.
• Research groups with freedom from daily defined
assignments are more creative.
• Locating R & D ventures away from the main
corporate centre gives a research team freedom
to innovate.
• Too close & too many control points throttle
innovation.
• Bureaucratic management can seriously hinder
technological innovation.
• Top management’s focus on short term financial
objectives may be detrimental to the realization of
the long term objective or Vision.
• Synergy and cooperation between research arm
and the Product development arm of a company
are essential for the successful push of
Technology.
• Synergy and cooperation between R & D,
Production and Marketing are essential for
successful commercialization of Technology.
• Focus on “QUALITY” and “TQM” is mandatory for
organizations for its survival and business
excellence.
• Entrepreneurship & not professionalism is key for
performance in a Technology oriented
organization.
 COMMENTS ON XEROGRAPHY:
• Carlson’S radical innovation & new Technology
was valued by the customer and created a new
Market.
• Hence 914 Copier a single Xerox Product became
the industry standard .
• Xerox became the leader in copying Industry and
got benefited by tremendous growth and enormous
Profit.
• Once the technology was recognized, Xerox shifted
from radical innovation to incremental & Process
innovation. Attitude towards Business & innovation
became callous and relaxed.
• Competitors were growing as Technology matured.
• By 1975 , Xerox’s market share and revenue were
lost to new competitors like Canon, Sharp,
Panasonic etc. whose Quality was inching higher
and cost getting lower.
• In 1970s Xerox shifted its attention to Information
technology – an area pioneered by IBM backed by
an extremely innovative marketing team.
• “PARC” was created in the information technology
sector and did commendable work in inventing
“ALTO” –a PC. However it lacked entrepreneurial
way of thinking.
• Technology & innovation created at the PARC
centre could never be appreciated and exploited by
the Bureaucrats at Xerox.
• There was no linkage and integration between
PARC center’s Vision and Xerox’s strategy.
• “PARC’s Alto system would have made Xerox
leader in innovative PC business. A company built
on risk & innovation surprisingly neglected the
importance of continuing to compete with new
innovations. It mainly lacked a committed
champion for development of new technology.
• The reason for failure was the management’s over
concern with bottom line and it did not have the
entrepreneurial skills to foster developments in an
entirely new arena.
• Turning round Xerox back to leadership position in
1990s Chairman and CEO Allaire introduced drastic
changes in the way Xerox did business.
• Xerox redefined its strategic Vision towards
creating “The Document Company”.
• Allaire integrated Xerox’s core competence and
technology together and gave it a modern TQM
oriented new approach for competitive edge with
customers.
• Xerox induced in its employees entrepreneurial skill
to compete in a highly volatile competitive
technological environment.
• Strategic thinking, TQM orientation, result oriented
team work, ability to delegate and empowerment
skills are highly appreciated in the new structure.
 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION- the MACRO LEVEL.

• Scientific discoveries and technological

breakthroughs have a potential for changing the
way people live and do business.
• The process of technological innovation in a region
spur major economic growth and change its entire
socioeconomic landscape .
• The “BRITISH MIDLANDS” and “SILICON Valley”
has strikingly similar features and circumstances
to foster such socioeconomic growth.
• Both the areas had common lessons to learn which
are detailed hereafter:
• Creative people who tend to depart from mundane
and the status quo usually advance innovations.
• Entrepreneurs drive innovations with support from
skilled technologists.
• Both areas were predominantly in habitated by
nonconformists free from established or forced
customs or practices.
• They believed in freedom of thinking & trade.
• They believed in education, having contacts and
sharing knowledge with like minded thinkers.
• Innovators tend to be drawn from the ranks of
those with no investments or vested interest in the
established order.
• For large scale innovation in a region freedom of
thought and entrepreneurial spirit is essential.
• The exchange of information among groups from
various disciplines are important.
• For the process of technological innovation, when
conditions are ripe for mental interaction in the
existence of infrastructure, innovations flourish.
• Both “LUNAR SOCIETY(1776) in the British
Midlands ( Burmingham)” & “The HOME BREW
COMPUTER CLUB(1970) IN Silicon Valley” helped
to:
• Exchange of ideas.
• Support member activities.
• Share information across disciplines.
• Share information across Industry.
• Exhibit Business Strategy.
• Produce real entrepreneurs.
• Create role models.