Not All Technology is Necessary

The decision regarding the adoption of a trend is not a one-off decision, but is reviewed continuously.

AP PHOTO/RICHARD DREW

The Google logo is displayed when searched on Google in New York, Monday (11/9/2023). Google said Thursday (22/2/2024) it had temporarily stopped its Gemini artificial intelligence chatbot from generating images of people a day after apologizing for inaccuracies in the depiction of history it created.

Who doesn't know Google, Microsoft, Apple, or Amazon? Cool companies that are pioneers innovating and producing phenomenal and legendary technology, such as Google Maps, Google Drive, Chrome, Youtube, Prime, Kindle, Alexa, Windows XP, Xbox 360, Microsoft Office, iPad, iPhone, iMac, and Vision Pro. They succeeded in controlling the market.

On the other hand, not many people are familiar with Google's technology products that quickly disappear, even some wither before developing, die before being initiated to the public, such as Nexus Q, Google Fiber, Magic Leap, Ara, Google Glass, Tango, Google Reader, Daydream, or Google+.

The same thing happens to Microsoft products, such as Microsoft Band, Windows 8, Kinect, Windows RT, Zune, Windows Phone, and Microsoft Kin. Apple also failed to market several of its products: the Apple Watch, Newton, AirPower, Antennagate, Apple Maps, and its Butterfly Keyboard. Amazon's HQ2 and The Fire Phone also failed, the same fate as Samsung's Bixby and Galaxy Fold and Netflix's Qwikster.

Not all cutting-edge products are born safe, welcomed enthusiastically, and accepted by the market (consumers). Many technology products experience tragic deaths and erode the financial standing of their developers. LeEco, known as China's Netflix, went bankrupt shortly after developing the Visio TV and Faraday Future electric car. HP suffered losses of nearly $300 billion, as a result of the failure of the TouchPad product. The Wii U product contributed to a loss of $48.6 billion for Nintendo.

Many products are successful, but quite a few die prematurely. Marx Payne (Fortune, 2023) provocatively stated that the percentage of innovative products or services that fail in the market is not 50 percent, but even reaches 90 percent.

These companies have a successful product history and understand what it takes to create a successful product. They have smart people, all the relevant technology and IP. They even have visionary management and intelligent implementers. They feel the pulse of the customers. They have the money and resources. Favorable market turbulence also helps influence momentum. However, none of these factors guarantee they will produce successful products. It turns out that not all of their technology is needed (by the market).

AP PHOTO/ELAINE THOMPSON

Two men are using reality-integrated glasses with computer-generated images on May 7th, 2018, in the United States. Microsoft has launched a $25 million artificial intelligence initiative to create technology assistance for people with disabilities.

Relevant technology trends

Not all technology trends are created equal. Many companies have fallen prey to the allure of spectacular technological initiatives, only to find that they provide little benefit in the end. The fact is that technology trends are unpredictable, constantly evolving, and their relevance to business can fluctuate.

Considering the significant role of technology behind many trends and the increasing pace of innovation, company leaders will hear more about these trends and feel pressure to take action. Therefore, the ability to quickly evaluate technology trends and communicate their relevance to the business becomes important for CEOs today.

They need a clear set of parameters to rely on in evaluating trends and determining which stance to take in interacting with them. Bossert and Richter(2024) map four parameters of technology trends in their relevance with business fit innate attributes that make them invaluable to any business.

First, disruptive business value. These trends can generate measurable value for businesses. Almost all trends have the potential to improve something in an organization. The question is, are the repairs worth the expense? It is important to understand which ones are beneficial (trade-offs).

Is the added value only incremental or significant and can success be clearly measured in key performance indicators (KPI)? If a trend improves IT processes, but cannot be directly linked to business benefits, it may not be worth a significant investment.

The value of some trends is also highly contextual. Blockchain, for example, has the potential to create a lot of value in several areas of financial services, such as cryptocurrencies and collateral management. However, in other industries, such as consumer packaged goods, the potential value is less clear.

The second issue is about independence. This trend allows companies to work in smaller and more independent units. One of the main challenges is that technology often has too much interdependence, causing technical debt and administrative processes such as alignment meetings and coordination processes, as well as meetings becoming unavoidable consequences.

The concept of "modularity" has been popular for almost two decades, but enthusiasm for it has not generally been matched in its implementation. This is where the transition to a product and platform operating model - with independent teams working on products that can be seen by users, while the platform team builds capabilities to support those products - can have a significant impact.

For some low-margin industries, large-scale outsourcing deals have been at least partially successful even if system dependencies have not changed. So, as the need for speed and flexibility in technology increases, the savings from outsourcing become even greater.

Third, connectivity. This trend reduces friction in organizational connectivity. While independence is important, operational trends such as satellite structures, or dividing the organization into disconnected units, will not have a major impact. There is a difference between dependency, which is not good, and the ability to use assets (leverage) which is critical to delivering value.

Virtualization is another trend that highlights the need to balance independence and connectivity. Initially focused on improving the use of hardware assets—specifically CPUs—virtualization also makes applications less dependent on each other and on larger systems by not forcing them all to run on a single server, but providing limited connectivity between individual virtual machines. In contrast, modern microservices patterns aim to increase independence and clarify interfaces thereby improving connectivity by reducing the need for centralized communications or coordination mechanisms.

Fourth, sustainability. This trend can broadly shape and enhance technology and organizational management practices. The impact of technological trends increases in line with their implementation and coherence across production fields. Technology trends that only touch on a single part of the IT field separately or are managed only as a "technology product" often do not have as wide an impact as true innovation.

Virtualization, microservices, or SaaS-based services, for example, are less successful when managed as pure technology products. Only when combined with supporting factors on the operational side, such as agility and the necessary support structures (such as HR roles and support), will the impact be much greater. Likewise, agility works best when all relevant parts of the company work in an agile manner.

Adopt or not?

The first driver: Involvement is most reasonable when a trend has a significant impact on the core business model of a company (meaning, this is a business sustainability issue). This approach generally involves significant investments of time, human resources, and money.

Fast follower: This approach is best applied when a trend can provide a significant impact on the business model or open up significant revenue streams. This engagement stance can be successful when the trend is still too early in its maturity cycle to understand the best ways to leverage it, or when the business does not yet have adequate capabilities to act based on the trend.

Slow adopters: This approach is an acceptable choice when the trend is not directly relevant to the core business or is not yet mature. It may make sense for implementing a particular trend. The danger is a complacent attitude and a too narrow view of trend relevance, which will make the company fall too far behind to catch up.

Non-Adoption: Some trends are unreasonable to be adopted by a business. A clear understanding of the business objectives and the impact of trends on those objectives is very important. Not all technologies need to be adopted, but the decision can be risky when driven by the mindset that "certain trends do not apply to us." The decision on whether and how to adopt a trend is not a one-time decision.

This requires constant review in line with the increasingly mature and developing technology, new application models and supporting service scales, or changes in market situations. However, CEOs who use these four parameters as a compass to determine relevance and consider their involvement choices can better guide their companies in transforming trends into value.

As written in the classic book by Friedrich Georg Jünger in 1946, The Failure of Technology, technology can have both positive and negative impacts and limitations. In this current Idul Fitri holiday moment, for example, all forms of advanced technology such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Line, and WhatsApp cannot replace the warmth of personal gatherings with family, even if it means crowding together to go back home to the village.

KOMPAS/ADRYAN YOGA PARAMADWYA

Executive Vice President of Aneka New Renewable Energy PT PLN (Persero) Zainal Arifin

Zainal Arifn, Lecturer in the Postgraduate Study Program at the PLN Institute of Technology and Administrator of the Indonesia Strategic Management Society

Email: [e-mail]