Notes

What May be the Relevance of Engineering?
"Technology in the long-run is irrelevant" ;.That's exactly what a customer of quarry explained when I made a presentation to him about a brand new product. I had been speaing frankly about the product's features and benefits and stated "state-of-the-art technology" or something compared to that effect, together of them. That's when he created his statement. I noticed later he was right, at the least within the context of how I used "Technology" in my own presentation. But I began contemplating whether he might be correct in other contexts as well.

What's Technology?

Merriam-Webster identifies it as:

1

a: the practical application of knowledge especially in a certain place: executive 2

b: a potential distributed by the realistic software of knowledge



2

: a types of completing a task particularly using specialized procedures, techniques, or knowledge

3

: the particular facets of a specific area of undertaking

Wikipedia identifies it as:

Engineering (from Greek τÎχνη, techne, "art, talent, clever of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[1]) may be the creating, change, usage, and understanding of resources, models, practices, designs, techniques, and ways of company, in order to resolve a problem, increase a pre-existing treatment for an issue, obtain an objective, manage an applied input/output connection or perform certain function. It can also refer to the assortment of such instruments, including machinery, changes, arrangements and procedures. Systems significantly influence individual as well as different dog species' ability to regulate and conform for their organic environments. The term can either be used usually or even to certain parts: cases include structure technology, medical technology, and data technology.

Equally explanations rotate about the same - application and usage.

Engineering is an enabler

Many individuals wrongly believe that it is technology which pushes innovation. Yet from the explanations above, that is clearly not the case. It's opportunity which identifies invention and engineering which enables innovation. Think of the traditional "Build a much better mousetrap" case taught in most company schools. You may have the technology to create a much better mousetrap, but when you have no mice or the previous mousetrap is effective, there is no opportunity and then a engineering to construct a better one becomes irrelevant. On another give, if you should be overrun with rats then a opportunity exists to innovate a product utilizing your technology.

Another case, one with which I'm intimately familiar, are electronic devices startup companies. I've been associated with both the ones that prevailed and the ones that failed. Each possessed special major side technologies. The difference was opportunity. The ones that failed could not discover the chance to produce a important innovation employing their technology. Actually to survive, these organizations had to morph often in to anything totally different and if these were fortunate they may take advantage of derivatives of their unique technology. More frequently than maybe not, the original engineering wound up in the scrap heap. Engineering, thus, is an enabler whose ultimate price proposition is to produce changes to the lives. To be able to be relevant, it needs to be used to produce inventions which can be pushed by opportunity.

Technology as a aggressive benefit?

Many organizations list a engineering together of their aggressive advantages. Is this valid? In some cases yes, but Typically no.

Technology grows along two trails - an evolutionary path and a revolutionary path.

A innovative technology is one which enables new industries or permits methods to issues that have been formerly not possible. Semiconductor technology is an excellent example. Not just did it spawn new industries and services and products, nonetheless it spawned other revolutionary technologies - transistor engineering, incorporated signal engineering, microprocessor technology. wosgroup which provide most of the products and solutions we consume today. But is semiconductor engineering a aggressive benefit? Taking a look at the amount of semiconductor companies that occur today (with new ones forming every day), I'n claim not. How about microprocessor technology? Again, no. Lots of microprocessor organizations out there. What about quad core microprocessor engineering? Maybe not as much companies, but you have Intel, AMD, ARM, and a number of businesses making custom quad key processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). Therefore again, very little of a competitive advantage. Opposition from competitive technologies and quick access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive advantageous asset of any particular technology. Android vs iOS is an excellent exemplory case of how this works. Both operating systems are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used their engineering to present iOS and gained an early on market advantage. However, Bing, employing their plan of Unix (a competing technology), caught up somewhat quickly. The causes with this sit maybe not in the main technology, but in how the products produced probable by those technologies were brought to promote (free vs. walled yard, etc.) and the differences in the proper thoughts of each company.

Transformative technology is the one which incrementally forms upon the bottom innovative technology. But by it's really nature, the slow modify is easier for a competitor to match or leapfrog. Get like instant cellphone technology. Company V introduced 4G products prior to Company A and while it may have experienced a quick term benefit, when Business A introduced their 4G products and services, the benefit due to technology disappeared. The customer returned to selecting Company A or Organization V predicated on cost, support, insurance, whatsoever, however, not centered on technology. Ergo engineering could have been applicable in the short-term, however in the future, turned irrelevant.
Website: https://wosgroup.com/genhyp/