“Technology in the long-run is irrelevant” ;.That is just what a client of quarry explained when I produced a demonstration to him about a brand new product. I had been talking about the product’s functions and benefits and listed “state-of-the-art technology” or something to that particular influence, as one of them. That is when he created his statement. I realized later he was correct, at least within the context of how I applied “Technology” within my presentation. But I started thinking about whether he might be proper in different contexts as well.

What’s Engineering?

Merriam-Webster describes it as:

1

a: the sensible request of information particularly in a certain place: executive 2

n: a capacity distributed by the practical request of knowledge



2

: a types of accomplishing an activity particularly applying complex functions, practices, or understanding

3

: the particular areas of a certain area of endeavor

Wikipedia identifies it as:

Engineering (from Greek τέχνη, techne, “art, ability, clever of hand”; and -λογία, -logia[1]) is the making, change, consumption, and familiarity with instruments, models, techniques, crafts, programs, and ways of business, in order to resolve a problem, improve a preexisting treatment for a problem, achieve a goal, manage an used input/output connection or execute a particular function. Additionally it may refer to the number of such resources, including equipment, alterations, arrangements and procedures. Systems somewhat influence individual as well as other dog species’ ability to manage and change for their organic environments. The definition of can often be applied generally or to unique places: cases include structure technology, medical technology, and information technology.

Both explanations revolve about the same thing – application and usage.

Technology is definitely an enabler

Lots of people wrongly still find it engineering which drives innovation. However from the meanings above, that is obviously perhaps not the case. It is possibility which describes advancement and engineering which allows innovation. Think of the common “Construct an improved mousetrap” case taught in most organization schools. You may have the technology to construct a better mousetrap, but if you have number mice or the old mousetrap is useful, there’s no opportunity and then a engineering to create a better one becomes irrelevant. On another give, if you’re overrun with rodents then your possibility exists to innovate something making use of your technology.

Still another example, one with which I’m intimately common, are consumer electronics start-up companies. I’ve been connected with both the ones that succeeded and those that failed. Each possessed special leading edge technologies. The big difference was opportunity. The ones that failed couldn’t discover the ability to develop a significant advancement employing their technology. In fact to endure, these companies had to morph oftentimes into something many different and if they were happy they could take advantage of derivatives of these unique technology. More frequently than perhaps not, the initial engineering hurt up in the scrap heap. Technology, ergo, is an enabler whose ultimate value idea is to make improvements to the lives. To be able to be applicable, it needs to be properly used to generate inventions that are pushed by opportunity.

Technology as a aggressive gain?

Several organizations number a technology as one of these aggressive advantages. Is that valid? In some cases yes, but Typically no.

Engineering advances along two routes – an major path and a revolutionary path.

A innovative engineering is the one that enables new industries or enables methods to issues that have been formerly perhaps not possible. Semiconductor engineering is a great example. Not just did it spawn new industries and services and products, however it spawned other innovative systems – transistor engineering, integrated enterprise technology, microprocessor technology. All which offer most of the products and services we eat today. But is semiconductor engineering a aggressive benefit? Considering how many semiconductor companies that exist nowadays (with new ones building every day), I’d claim not. Think about microprocessor technology? Again, no. A lot of microprocessor businesses out there. Think about quad key microprocessor engineering? Maybe not as many organizations, but you’ve Intel, AMD, ARM, and a host of organizations building custom quad core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). Therefore again, not much of a aggressive advantage. Opposition from competitive systems and quick access to IP mitigates the observed competitive benefit of any unique technology. Android versus iOS is an excellent exemplory instance of how this works. Equally systems are derivatives of UNIX. Equipos industriales used their engineering to add iOS and acquired an early industry advantage. Nevertheless, Bing, utilizing their alternative of Unix (a competitive technology), swept up fairly quickly. The reasons for this lay maybe not in the underlying technology, but in how the products built probable by these systems were produced to promote (free vs. walled garden, etc.) and the differences in the proper visions of each company.

Major technology is one which incrementally forms upon the base revolutionary technology. But by it’s really nature, the step-by-step change now is easier for a competition to fit or leapfrog. Take as an example instant phone technology. Company V introduced 4G items prior to Organization A and while it may experienced a brief term advantage, when Business A presented their 4G products and services, the advantage as a result of technology disappeared. The buyer returned to picking Company A or Organization V centered on cost, support, protection, whatever, however, not based on technology. Thus technology might have been applicable in the short-term, however in the long run, became irrelevant.