The approaches to managing innovation are the same and different for the incumbent and new firms. For instance, incumbent firms choose to investigate the latest technologies when the current technologies fail for them to decide whether to change or not. On the same note, new firms are responsible for the introduction of new products and services based on new technologies. On the contrary, the incumbent firms tend to be persistent with the investments in their current technologies and are unlikely to shift until the new technologies are unable to serve their customers despite them developing new technologies whereas the new firms introduce new technology suitable for their service provision. These patterns are the same in various industries.

2. Some forms of innovation are better or worse for new entrepreneurs due to various reasons. For instance, a new firm can operate without having to adapt to the same product design used by incumbent businesses. However, if a dominant product design is adopted, the new firm will be at a disadvantage because it will lack the experience the incumbent firms have in using a given innovation. The Abernathy-Utterback model identifies that the fluid phase of an industry is the most suitable for new firms, while the specific period is favorable for the incumbent firms. On the other hand, innovations are only ideal for a new firm before a dominant design emerges because it prevents competition. However, the competitive advantage diminishes once the dominant curve arises.

3. The listed persons agree on that technological changes are necessary and are part of an organization. However, they have a different perception of when and how these changes should or need to take place. For instance, Abernathy-Utterback state that technology evolves through incremental innovation, interrupted by radical innovation periods. However, Barras disputes the fact, and instead, he identifies that the service industries adopt new technologies that are first developed in the goods industry because production is what determines the availability of a service. Subsequently, Tushman states that established firms can transition to an underlying technology if the technology computer enhances but refrain from doing so if the technology is competence destroying. Henderson and Clark identified that the incumbent firms mostly failed to manage technological changes.  After comparing Abernathy-Utterback, and Barras, one realizes that the timing of the radical and incremental change differs because manufacturing industries begin with radical innovation whereas the service industries begin with incremental innovation. Last but not least, Christensen believes that the unwillingness of the customers of a given company is what prevents technological changes in most organizations.

4. According to Professor Christensen, targeting a new or underserved market is the right strategy for a new firm in disruptive innovation. The strategy is appropriate because it provides the new entrant an upper hand in ensuring that the customers accomplish things that were not possible with the existing technology. Incumbent firms can use disruptive technologies to avoid adverse outcomes by learning how to develop new companies to exploit the techniques rather than ignoring or striving to create technology that serves the needs of the organization. Disruptive innovations tend to appeal to the parts of the market that are underserved because it provides business with a chance to introduce new services. New firms can use new technology in an independent company to enable it to focus on the customers rather than the existing products.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?