test12
Based on this market research, the managers decided to develop a 1.3” drive that would survive a three
-footdrop and accommodate 20MB of capacity. By investing in materials research and proprietary technology andby leveraging DMD’s expertise in integration technology, the design team met the target and within a year’stime introduced a 1.3” disk drive that was half the total size and one third the weight of the 1.8” disk drive that was introduced in the market by competitors just months ago. However, the team was unable to meet the targetprice of $50 and ended up with a price of $250. One factor that drove up the price was the expensiveaccelerometer that had a feature that prevented data loss in case the drive fell on the floor. The other importantfactor that the management team set a very tight schedule for the launch of the product and in the processtraded performance, features and cost, just so that the schedule was met.
I. High potential of the DMD and the project
A. Place of HP through DMD in the disk drive market
B. An innovation: the Kittyhawk
C. Flexibility of a start up and resources of a big structure
II. The reasons for failure
A. Sustaining versus disruptive innovation
B. The target market
C. The strategic objectives
III. The Kittyhawk should have been considered as a disruptive technology
A. Defining the disruptive product
B. Which markets and which objectives?
C. The implementation of the Kittyhawk project
Detail analysis of the failure of Kittyhawk
In the course of their market research, there are some facts we have to pay attention to. This fact is just why the kittyhawk project has failed.
Firstly, the Nintendo marketing manager is very interested in the small storage device on the Nintendo exhibition, and the capacity of 1.3’’ disk drive worked very well for their games. But the marketing only have one request that the cost of the disk drive can’t be more than $50 dollar.
But they did not meet Nintendo’s request of $50
-footdrop and accommodate 20MB of capacity. By investing in materials research and proprietary technology andby leveraging DMD’s expertise in integration technology, the design team met the target and within a year’stime introduced a 1.3” disk drive that was half the total size and one third the weight of the 1.8” disk drive that was introduced in the market by competitors just months ago. However, the team was unable to meet the targetprice of $50 and ended up with a price of $250. One factor that drove up the price was the expensiveaccelerometer that had a feature that prevented data loss in case the drive fell on the floor. The other importantfactor that the management team set a very tight schedule for the launch of the product and in the processtraded performance, features and cost, just so that the schedule was met.
I. High potential of the DMD and the project
A. Place of HP through DMD in the disk drive market
B. An innovation: the Kittyhawk
C. Flexibility of a start up and resources of a big structure
II. The reasons for failure
A. Sustaining versus disruptive innovation
B. The target market
C. The strategic objectives
III. The Kittyhawk should have been considered as a disruptive technology
A. Defining the disruptive product
B. Which markets and which objectives?
C. The implementation of the Kittyhawk project
Detail analysis of the failure of Kittyhawk
In the course of their market research, there are some facts we have to pay attention to. This fact is just why the kittyhawk project has failed.
Firstly, the Nintendo marketing manager is very interested in the small storage device on the Nintendo exhibition, and the capacity of 1.3’’ disk drive worked very well for their games. But the marketing only have one request that the cost of the disk drive can’t be more than $50 dollar.
But they did not meet Nintendo’s request of $50