Olofsson proposed the following model:

I [radicality] = (T [trajectory] + M [need] + T [product])/3

Where:

• I [radicality] is an innovation’s radicality value (how radical the innovation is).
• T [trajectory] is the technological dimension according to its trajectory.
• M [need] is the market dimension.
• T [product] is the technological dimension at the product level.

Before we present the modified framework, we will first review Olofsson’s framework in more detail.

The T,M,T variables above are multi-dimensional variables.

• T [trajectory] is made up of:
• T [separate]: How separate the new technology’s trajectory is from the current technological trajectory? Questions related to this dimension might be:
• “Is the technology of the new innovation easily assimilated into the existing technological trajectory in the industry? Is it in line with the logical extension of the existing trajectory? The higher the value on this dimension, the more separate from (or less aligned with) the established technological trajectory should the new innovation be considered to be” (Olofsson 1 ).
• T [focus]: Is the technology’s focus on functionality, reliability, convenience or cost. A high value would be assigned if the focus of the new innovation was on functionality rather than cost.
• T [competence]: What is the new innovation’s impact on the existing competence in the industry? This dimension examines “to what degree does the [new] innovation . . . have an impact on the technological knowledge and skills of the actors established in the industry previous to the new innovation’s appearance. To what degree does the new innovation require fundamental (creative) destruction of previous knowledge and skills for established actors to be able to compete” (1)?
• T [supply]: What is the new innovation’s impact on the production supply chain of established actors?
• “To what extent does the [new innovation] … affect production systems, procedures and equipment? To what extent does the transfer from the old technology to the new impact on the industry’s linkages to the existing sub-suppliers and sales organizations? The greater the impact, the higher the value” (1).
• T [product] is made up of two dimension originally used for the model first proposed by Henderson & Clark (1990) – component and structure.
• T [component]: “How different are the [new] innovation’s components compared to previous products in the industry? Is there one specific component that has radically changed? Have technological solutions in the product existed previously? Have they existed in the industry” (1)?
• T [structure]: “How different is the innovation’s product architecture compared to previous products in the industry? Is there one specific aspect that has change or is everything changed? Perhaps due to new components, materials, new technologies or new inventions? Have the new innovation’s product architecture existed previously? Has it existed in this industry? To what degree has the interfaces between the product’s components changed? Is the design radically different from previous designs in the industry (1)?
• M [need] is made up of four dimensions
• M [need-creator]: Whether or not the new innovation is a need creator? In other words does it satisfy a whole new set of customer needs? “To what extent does the new innovation address the mainstream customers’ established expectations and needs? To what extent is the new innovation reformulating the established mindset of what the customers’ really want? Does the innovation involve new features (need parameters), perhaps combining the functions and applications of some other product innovations, thus eliminating the market need for them? Is the new product innovation simply replacing a need satisfier with another, thus preserving the existing paradigm of how certain needs or sets of needs should be met? The more the new innovation addresses and satisfies a new set of customer needs (non-mainstream); the more it reformulates the established mindset; the more it involves new features; and the more it eliminates previous market needs; the higher the value assigned to this market sub-dimension” (1).
• M [pioneer]: “Does the innovation in question attract new customers? Are these new customers not just more of the same but what we could call pioneers or niche customers as compared to earlier” (1)?
• M [supply]: “To what extent does the innovation in focus affect the distribution systems of the established industry? To what extent is a new distribution system required? The same line of thought applies to the service systems. Also, does the emergence of the new innovation create hurdles for the established industry to communicate with (potential) customers” (1)?
• M [undershooting]: “Does the new innovation offer new possibilities or improvements on some key parameter while under-performing the established products on some of the parameters that seem obvious and taken for granted? If the answer is yes to this question then the corresponding sub-dimension should reflect that by being assigned a higher value” (1).

1 Dan Olofsson, Radical product Innovations, IDP, 2003-01-15

TOP ^