Assessment of Innovation: The Geometrics of Strategy

Innovation as a core driver of industrial development needs careful consideration, since not each innovation holds the same degree of novelty and impact on the market place. Additionally, innovation is too often taken as a synonym for imitation and amongst many authors Trott complains about the ambiguous use of the term innovation (2007). As evidence provided by own research has shown, there is no clear and precise taxonomy for the field of innovation, which is considered a major disadvantage, since the gaining of mutually accepted knowledge and understanding is deprived (Oestreicher. 20112).

An opportunity of assessing innovation arises by using Keidel’s framework of geometries of strategy, in which triangular thinking is considered as the most robust tool of assessment (2010). In a three dimensional approach a variety of determinants can be used, but three logics seem to be favourable, when considering the following research findings (Keidel. 2010):

§ Dimension 1 Collaboration: Innovation is rarely an isolated novelty, usually it consists of inputs of various parties (Hargadon. 2003); innovation consists (frequently) of product/service, infrastructure and ecosystem (Adomavicius et al. 2008).
§ Dimension 2 Autonomy: Innovation is formed by two forces, technology and market linkages leading to the thesis that any commercial innovation in technology is ultimately only as good as its impact on the marketplace (Abernathy et al. 1983, 1984).
§ Dimension 3 Control: Control can represent various meanings; one of the explanations is presented by Christensen et al. in their resources, process and values theory, another explanation is market control, which is executed by domination or patents [e.g. domination by Microsoft applications or industrial control by Sony with its patent of the Blu-ray technology] (2004).

Oestreicher and Oestreicher et al. have presented their research findings in two earlier papers, which addressed the Home Entertainment Industry as an exemplary study about product failure with regard to the jobs-to-be-done theory and why – due to the TRIZ theory – the Blu-ray disc is not the Ideal Final Result for the consumption of Home Entertainment content (2009, 2010, Christensen et al. 2004, Domb cited in Oestreicher et al. 2010). The research presented in this paper is based on this earlier argumentation. It constitutes a concluding assessment of the Home Entertainment Industry’s innovation, or better survival strategies in its battle against the disruptive invader presented by new entrants into an established market. With reference to its present structure we use data collected in a long-term qualitative research for the assessment that managers of the Home Entertainment’s replication industry made substantial strategic mistakes, which will, as even industry insiders expect by now, lead to this industry sector’s obsolescence in the near future.

With regard to the assessment of innovation, as interviews state, the replication industry has missed the opportunity to innovate itself.

The geometry of strategy provides a research-based three-dimensional insight into the problematic of fighting with marginal tools against a radical invader. Keidel’s strategy framework is extended by Kim et al’s framework of conventional logic and value innovation logic offering a denser assessment particularly with regard to market impacts (2010, 1998, 2005).

Key words: Geometry of strategy, innovation assessment, conventional logic, value innovation logic, Home Entertainment Industry, path-dependency