Critique on Architectural changes
Kim B. Clark and Rebecca M. Henderson, having published numerous articles in academic journals concerning the impact of technology on industry competition, are considered renowned academics. Their article, “Architectural Innovation”. despite having been written decades ago, has made itself more relevant in the digital age where architectural innovation is highly valued and sought after due to the significant profits it can bring. One such architectural innovation, the IPOD, easily claimed the largest market share in the MP3 player market upon its release (Dalrymple, 2007).
Because of the world changing impact an architectural innovation is able to have, it is just as important to understand the dangers an architectural innovation could bring. The authors claim that in comparison to incremental or radical innovations, architectural innovation presents established companies with a bigger challenge in maintaining their competitiveness edge. This is because communication channels and information filters, which are based upon the companies’ old architectural knowledge, are thrown into chaos. Those which fail to recognize and acknowledge the perils of architectural innovation will lose their monopoly power over the market.
The authors have made a convincing argument through using a strong organizational structure in their article. By first defining key terms to give the readers a good foundation and then backing up each point made with specific examples cited from credible sources, the authors have made it easy for the layman to understand their arguments. Additionally, the authors have maintained an objective tone in delivering their arguments which adds to the strength of their arguments.
Nevertheless, the article remains unpersuasive due to a weak line of reasoning evident from both the use of an inappropriate case study and a key flawed assumption referenced throughout the article.
Clark and Henderson conducted a study of the semiconductor
Because of the world changing impact an architectural innovation is able to have, it is just as important to understand the dangers an architectural innovation could bring. The authors claim that in comparison to incremental or radical innovations, architectural innovation presents established companies with a bigger challenge in maintaining their competitiveness edge. This is because communication channels and information filters, which are based upon the companies’ old architectural knowledge, are thrown into chaos. Those which fail to recognize and acknowledge the perils of architectural innovation will lose their monopoly power over the market.
The authors have made a convincing argument through using a strong organizational structure in their article. By first defining key terms to give the readers a good foundation and then backing up each point made with specific examples cited from credible sources, the authors have made it easy for the layman to understand their arguments. Additionally, the authors have maintained an objective tone in delivering their arguments which adds to the strength of their arguments.
Nevertheless, the article remains unpersuasive due to a weak line of reasoning evident from both the use of an inappropriate case study and a key flawed assumption referenced throughout the article.
Clark and Henderson conducted a study of the semiconductor