Time trap

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the field of technology and innovation management, the time trap is the unfavorable situation that a follower (latecomer) can get into in the technology competition due to his late market entry.

Time competition and time trap

Followers in the time trap (according to Pfeiffer)

Basically, with regard to market entry, a distinction can be made between the pioneer or first position on the one hand and the follower or follower position on the other. In the case of pioneering companies, a new product does not have a technically comparable competitor product at the time it is launched . A follower company comes on the market later with a comparable product. Under the changed framework conditions that have existed in numerous industrial sectors since the 1980s, latecomers, according to Pfeiffer and Weiß , face a dangerous time trap . You name three key trends:

  1. Shortened market cycles ("market cycle contraction")
  2. "Exploding" prep costs
  3. More complex research and development processes and thus longer periods of time between early research activities and reaching series maturity ("development cycle expansion")

In short: Increased development costs extend the amortization period for new products, while at the same time the time window for successful marketing becomes shorter.

Under such framework conditions, the disadvantages of a successor position are particularly serious:

  • Disadvantages on the supply side include the patent protection established by the pioneer and the lack of access to efficient suppliers and the lack of purchasing power. Considerable disadvantages arise for the follower on the manufacturing cost side due to the lack of experience and size effects ( experience curve ).
  • Disadvantages on the demand side are e.g. B. the considerably smaller market shares of the laggard and the smaller overall available market volume . The follower also misses out on price premiums with which early buyers of new products reward pioneering companies in early market phases.

Companies in the time trap (examples)

  • In the mid-2000s, the German television manufacturer Loewe slipped into a deep crisis because they largely overslept the trend towards flat screen televisions . Loewe was able to free itself from the time trap with the help of the Japanese flat screen manufacturer Sharp , which increased its equity stake in Loewe at the end of 2004 and injected fresh capital of 15 million euros, which could be invested in restructuring the product range.
  • In 2008, US automakers such as General Motors and Ford hardly had any economical car models ready for the US market. In view of a significant change in demand at the expense of SUVs (Sport Utility Vehicles) and in favor of small, more efficient cars, US manufacturers are in a "race against time".
  • The semiconductor manufacturer Infineon failed as a laggard in the market for flash memory chips . In 2003 a joint venture was established with Saifun Semiconductors for the development and production of flash memories . The outsourced Infineon memory chip division Qimonda only achieved a share of 0.1 percent of the global flash memory market in 2007. In April 2008, Qimonda announced that it would withdraw from the development of flash memory chips.
  • Another example of a time-lag situation is the mobile phone manufacturer Nokia in the market segment of smartphones : The Finns dominated the market for years with the Communicator series, among other things, but slept through the trend away from the keyboard and towards the touchscreen while increasing user-friendliness. Apple's iPhone has been a benchmark since it was launched in 2007 . Nokia boss Stephen Elop formulated the criticism of his own company in April 2011 as follows: "The iPhone appeared in 2007 and we still have no product that comes close to its equal".

Innovation as a way out of the time trap

The late offer of technically similar products ( me-too strategy ) offers latecomers little chance of breaking out of a time trap. On the other hand, the strategy of attacking and overtaking successful pioneering companies with technically significantly improved products is promising .

  • In 1980, Dornier Medizintechnik pioneered the first kidney stone breaker (lithotripter) on the market. Siemens Medizintechnik only countered in 1986 with a completely different lithotripter. The "Dornier bathtub" was replaced by a dry coupling on the Siemens device. The operating costs have been reduced significantly and more patients are treated at shorter intervals.
  • On the market for long-haul aircraft for approx. 300 passengers, Airbus finds itself in a time-trap situation compared to Boeing . Regardless of the delays in the first delivery, Boeing had around 900 orders for the new B 787 (Dreamliner) model in mid-2008 .
Airbus dagegen konnte das Konkurrenzprodukt zum Boeing Dreamliner, den A 350 XWB, erst ab Dezember 2014 ausliefern. Entscheidende Bedeutung für den Markterfolg des A 350 XWB wird der technische Innovationsgrad haben. Dies wurde 2006 deutlich, als Airbus den vorherigen Plan aufgab, bereits 2010 einen A 350 anzubieten, der aber gegenüber den Vorgängermodellen A 330 und A 340 nur relativ wenig Verbesserungen gebracht hätte. Nach starken Kundenprotesten änderte Airbus die A-350-Strategie. Der A 350 XWB bekommt neue Tragflächen, stärkere Triebwerke und einen breiteren Rumpf (XWB = Extra Wide Body).

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ W. Pfeiffer, 1985, p. 128; W. Pfeiffer, E. Weiß, 1994, p. 279 ff.
  2. ↑ K.-I. Voigt, 1998, p. 93.
  3. ↑ W. Pfeiffer, E. Weiß, 1994, pp. 278 f.
  4. ^ V. Trommsdorff, F. Steinhoff, 2007, p. 180.
  5. ↑ TJ Gerpott, 2005, p. 221.
  6. ↑ http://www.manager-magazin.de/geld/artikel/0,2828,338285,00.html accessed on August 6, 2008.
  7. ↑ Johannes Winkelhage: Of survival in the premium niche. In: FAZ.net . January 3, 2008, accessed October 13, 2018 .
  8. ↑ http://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaft/international/403458/index.do?from=simarchiv accessed on August 6, 2008.
  9. ↑ http://www.manager-magazin.de/it/cebit/0,2828,236946,00.html accessed on August 6, 2008.
  10. ↑ http://www.isuppli.com/NEWS/default.asp?id=8349&m=8&y=2007 accessed on August 7, 2008.
  11. ↑ Qimonda deletes every tenth place. In: sueddeutsche.de . May 17, 2010, accessed October 13, 2018 .
  12. ↑ http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/it-medien/nokia-chef-elop-kritisiert-die-leistungs-seines-konzerns/3827006.html accessed on April 29, 2011.
  13. ^ W. Pfeiffer, E. Weiß, 1994, p. 289 and V. Shankar, GS Carpenter, L. Krishamurthi, 1998, p. 55.
  14. ↑ Struggle with pushing and breaking. In: industrial magazine. 24, 11, 1990, pp. 70-75.
  15. ↑ http://finanzen.sueddeutsche.de/aktien/news_news?secu=397&dpa_news_id=6067006&news_id= (link not available)
  16. ↑ Can it be a little wider? In: time online. Retrieved August 6, 2008.

literature

  • TJ Gerpott: Strategic technology and innovation management. 2nd Edition. Stuttgart 2005.
  • W. Pfeiffer: On the need for strategic pre-control of innovation processes. In: J. Franke (Ed.): Business innovation as an interdisciplinary problem. Stuttgart 1985, pp. 124-133.
  • W. Pfeiffer, R. Dögl: The technology portfolio concept for mastering the interface between technology and corporate strategy. In: D. Hahn, B. Taylor (ed.): Strategic corporate planning. Status and development tendencies. 4th edition. Heidelberg / Vienna 1986, pp. 149–177.
  • W. Pfeiffer, E. Weiss: Technology-Oriented Competitive Strategies. In: H. Corsten (Ed.): Handbuch Produktionsmanagement. Strategy - leadership - technology - interfaces. Wiesbaden 1994, pp. 275-291.
  • V. Shankar, GS Carpenter, L. Krishamurthi: Late Mover Advantage: How Innovative Late Entrants Outsell Pioneers. In: Journal of Marketing Research. 35, 1, 1998, pp. 54-70.
  • V. Trommsdorff, F. Steinhoff: Innovation Marketing. Munich 2007.
  • K.-I. Voigt: Strategies in the time competition. Technology management and marketing options. Wiesbaden 1998.