samsung electronics innovation and design strategy pdf

Samsung electronics innovation and design strategy pdf

File Name: samsung electronics innovation and design strategy .zip
Size: 16328Kb
Published: 25.04.2021

Planting and harvesting innovation - an analysis of Samsung Electronics

37364004 Samsung Electronics Innovation and Design Strategy

Samsung Electronics: Innovation and Design Strategy

In this analysis, find out how Samsung executed strategic marketing to literally transform into the global electronics powerhouse seen today.

Planting and harvesting innovation - an analysis of Samsung Electronics

Metrics details. This study explores how firms manage the entire life cycle of innovation projects based on the framework of harvesting and planting innovation. While harvesting innovation seeks new products in the expectation of financial performance in the short term, planting innovation pursues creating value over a long time period.

Without proper management of the process of planting and harvesting innovation, firms with limited resources may not be successful in launching innovative new products to seize a momentum in high tech industries.

To examine this issue, the case of Samsung Electronics SE , now an electronics giant originated from a former developing country, is analyzed. SE has shown to effectively utilize co-innovation to maintain numerous planting and harvesting innovation projects. Both researchers and practitioners would be interested in learning about how SE shared risks of innovation investment with external partners at the early stage of innovation cycles. Globalization and advances in technologies have made the global market extremely dynamic and competitive.

While companies like Apple have created new customer value by introducing such products as iMac computer and iPhone, many other firms have failed to adapt to the fast-changing environment. Kodak, the creator of the film camera, became history since it failed to adapt to the digital era in a timely fashion. To compete successfully in the dynamic global market, organizations must continuously innovate ways to create value [ 1 ]. Thus, innovation has been an important topic to both management researchers and practitioners [ 2 ].

Many studies have explored the relationship between innovative activities and organizational performance [ 3 , 4 ]. Innovative activities of the firm have generally shown to positively impact organizational outcome.

Although a number of studies in this research stream have introduced various types of innovation based on learning styles [ 6 , 7 ] or objects [ 3 ], few have paid attention to the timing of financial return from innovation.

Given the importance of financial payoff from innovation for firm survival and sustained competitive advantage, research on how a real business should manage both innovation and cash flow is critical.

Thus, in this study, we intend to answer the following two research questions. RQ1: Which classification of innovation can best explain the heterogeneous timing of financial payoff realization? To answer this question, we applied a classification scheme of planting and harvesting innovation [ 8 , 9 ].

Planting innovation involves pursuing potential sources of competitive advantage, including original technology, which may create value in a long term perspective. In contrast, harvesting innovation aims to develop new ways to monetize planted innovation, including new products for market launching, in the expectation of commercial success in a relatively short term. The aim of this research stream is to determine how to implement planting and harvesting innovation and measure the results of ensuing innovative activities.

From this perspective, this study examines how a real global firm manages both types of innovation. RQ2: How are planting and harvesting activities of innovation actually implemented in a successful global business firm? While SE has developed many innovative new commercial products, it has focused on fundamental breakthrough technologies as the source of future growth momentum.

This case may provide valuable implications for firms from developing economies. To compete in high tech industries, these businesses need to invest a large amount of capital to risky innovation projects. Otherwise, they may remain low value added entities, like assemblers or fast followers. The case of SE, like many other success stories, exhibits a possibility that multinationals originated from developing countries can become leading global firms based on their efforts and vision for breakthrough innovations.

Given the current turbulent global business environment, as observed by trade disputes between the USA and China and the recently disrupted supply of critical input resources from Japan to Korea, it is imperative for firms to develop core competences based on innovation. In the digital age, businesses must rely on innovation to enhance their dynamic capabilities [ 10 ] to enhance agility, flexibility, and resilience for value creation [ 1 ]. Thus, this study which focuses on the effective management of planting and harvesting innovation is expected to make important contributions to the literature.

This study examines how firms can implement innovation projects for both short- and long-term perspectives. For this purpose, we first reviewed the literature for major research streams of innovation. Then, a case method is used to examine how planting and harvesting of innovation have helped SE became a dominant global electronics firm, around In addition to secondary data, executive interviews reported in media also describe how SE employees implemented planting and harvesting innovation.

The results of qualitative analyses are presented and articulated. Finally, the implications and limitations of this research are presented. The framework of planting and harvesting innovation provides a theoretical background on how firms can strive for both short-term cash flow and a long-term momentum despite their limited resources.

Furthermore, the study results provide insights to practitioners through the case study of SE which struggled initially to save the cost of innovation by collaborating with external partners for planting and harvesting innovation. Researchers in various fields, including economics, sociology, and technology management, have been interested in innovation [ 11 ].

The characteristics of innovative outcomes have been investigated as a major research agenda [ 12 , 13 ]. As Damanpour and colleagues [ 14 ] suggested, the introduction of novel ideas or technologies is the core of innovation.

These studies imply that the main focus of innovation research has been on whether the firm creates new tangible or intangible values. However, innovation has shown to lead to varied results. The meta-analysis by Rosenbusch et al. Even if firms implement similar innovation projects, the result can be different due to environmental factors.

In addition, innovation sometimes improves the value of marketing skills rather than creating new technical capabilities [ 18 , 19 ]. What these results imply is that characteristics of innovative activities are complex. Since a single concept cannot explain the nature and outcome of innovation, researchers need to consider diverse classifications to explain the phenomena of innovation.

Given the importance of cash flow in business, a greater focus is required on the influence of innovation on the survival and prosperity of the firm. Furthermore, the large amount of investment needed for innovative activities requires firms to prioritize and manage their projects based on the commercial potential. Thus, there is a need to search for a new framework that can provide better explanations on innovation with respect to this issue.

The most existing classifications of innovation are not based on the timing of financial outcomes of innovative activities. One of the typologies regarding this topic is the categorization of radical and incremental innovation based on the sharpness of change in innovative practices [ 20 ].

A more drastic transformation can be expected from radical innovation projects while a relatively slight newness can be added to existing technologies during the incremental innovation process. Since radical innovation can pursue both drastic breakthrough and immediate commercialization, there exists the disparity between the distinction of radical and incremental innovation, the main focus of this paper. Space shuttle can be considered as an example of radical innovation as the realization of reusable spacecraft but it is generally considered as a product for immediate use rather than a long-term growth momentum.

Such discrepancy leads researchers to develop a new categorization of innovation based on the expected timing of financial outcome. Qualcomm could benefit from licensing fees in the long term with the success of commercial products based on CDMA. While certain types of innovative activities may result in an increase of the firm resources engaged in the current competition, others can create value that has long-term potential. This approach modifies the definition of innovations by Gumusluoglu and Ilsev [ 21 ] as described in Jang [ 8 ] and Jang and Grandzol [ 9 ].

New products, such as Toyota Prius, would be a good example of this type of innovation. Planting innovation refers to the creation of potential firm resources that are based on the state-of-the-art innovation in the expectation of long-term financial benefits.

The commercial use of human stem cell research in the USA has been prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration [ 22 ]. Firms initiating planting innovation in this area cannot expect commercial success due to this regulation, except perhaps in other countries. Second, firms may need to wait for the advent of other complementing technologies for the commercialization process.

Thus, firms face a high degree of uncertainty about the financial outcome of planting innovation in the long term, especially in the biotech industry. The development of a new technology usually has a high probability of failure. Therefore, planting innovation may not lead to financial gains in the short term even if firms succeed in developing a technology.

The characteristic of planting innovation makes it distinct from invention. Firms invest in planting innovation projects in the expectation of long-term profits.

Although the result of planting innovation may directly create cash flows in the form of patent fee, firms usually wait until finding out how to apply the result of planting innovation. In contrast, harvesting innovation pursues short-term profits by launching new products or services. Due to the lack of commercial intention of Xerox both short and long term, these developments can be classified as examples of invention rather than planting innovation. Given the heterogeneous characteristics of planting and harvesting innovation, ambidexterity can be important in balancing such innovative activities.

Studies on exploitative and explorative innovations have examined this issue [ 6 , 7 , 25 ]. Since pioneering efforts for new processes or technology involve much risk, firms need to optimize the return of their investment in both types of innovation.

Such arrangements would allow firms to share the risk of innovation with other participants [ 1 ]. In addition, convergence has played a major role in explaining value added activities in modern firms [ 1 , 26 ]. Globalization has encouraged the convergence revolution which allows value creation from the synergy of diverse disciplines, industries including IT, biotechnology, and nanotechnology [ 26 ].

The co-innovation platform helps converge diverse types of innovations for value creation [ 1 ]. Multinationals participating in co-innovation are expected to collaborate with stakeholders, including suppliers, customers, partners, and outsiders. Therefore, outside stakeholders can be active partners who co-create shared goals. Overall, the classification of innovation can contribute to research by providing clearer guidelines related to the timing of financial outcome of innovation.

While planting innovation can result in potential resources for long-term value creation, harvesting innovation is intended to generate continuous cash flows to those engaged in the current market. Following the case of exploitative and explorative innovation, researchers in this field should also consider ambidexterity of the organization.

By doing so, firms under resource constraints can be prepared for an optimal portfolio of innovation projects, resulting in better organizational performance in the long term. In this study, the case of Samsung Electronics SE , now the largest electronic firm in the world from a former emerging economy, is examined to unveil the processes of harvesting and planting innovation and their results.

Innovative activities have been the core strength of SE and are expected to continue creating value for SE. This implies that the firm intends to pursue innovation over time beyond the development of commercial products for short-term returns. Several qualitative techniques are employed to investigate the SE case. First, we collected articles including executive interviews from to The articles were manually coded into planting and harvesting innovation frameworks after a careful review of contents.

Particularly, we searched Naver, the major Korean portal website, to collect news articles concerning SE research topics from to We chose this period, and , to collect data for this study as this is when SE made the significant transformation to become a dominant global IT leader. After removing duplicates, we investigated the contents of related news articles.

Based on the analysis, all the key interviews of executives and managers at SE were collected and examined. In addition, the other secondary data sources like the websites of companies, universities, and local governments were examined.

37364004 Samsung Electronics Innovation and Design Strategy

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. This marketing communication case study assignment help paper discusses the strategies that are used by the Apple and Samsung for their tablets in order to differentiate products by using integrated marketing communication and customer message management. Accordingly, instead of conducting marketing researches to identify customer needs and wants, the multinational technology company prefers to install innovative features and capabilities in their products, making customers to want Apple products. Samsung saw volumes drop 8. Integrated Differentiate the Product 4. Marketing Strategy: In marketing strategy, the goals would have been divided into sub-targets. While Apple leads by profits, Samsung leads by market share.

Below are the available bulk discount rates for each individual item when you purchase a certain amount. Register as a Premium Educator at hbsp. Publication Date: April 01, Industry: Consumer Electronics. Industry: Technology. Source: University of Hong Kong. In January , Samsung Electronics won 32 innovation and design engineering awards at the Consumer Electronics Show, the largest show of its kind in the world.

Metrics details. This study explores how firms manage the entire life cycle of innovation projects based on the framework of harvesting and planting innovation. While harvesting innovation seeks new products in the expectation of financial performance in the short term, planting innovation pursues creating value over a long time period. Without proper management of the process of planting and harvesting innovation, firms with limited resources may not be successful in launching innovative new products to seize a momentum in high tech industries. To examine this issue, the case of Samsung Electronics SE , now an electronics giant originated from a former developing country, is analyzed. SE has shown to effectively utilize co-innovation to maintain numerous planting and harvesting innovation projects. Both researchers and practitioners would be interested in learning about how SE shared risks of innovation investment with external partners at the early stage of innovation cycles.


Toolkit including Frameworks, Tools & Templates - By ex-McKinsey & BCG Consultants.


Samsung Electronics: Innovation and Design Strategy

Huawei Strategy Analysis Pdf. Huawei is widely seen as providing the most advanced 5G for the super-fast data transfers, necessary for self-driving cars and remote-controlled robots in factories or operating theaters. Huawei has. It has been reported that the Trump administration is considering adding surveillance camera giant Hikvision and Dahua Technology, etc. Root causes analysis is simply a tool designed to help incident investigators determine what, how and most importantly, why an incident occurred.

Introduction: The case study commences with the integration of innovative design and brand management by Samsung Electronics which started a new trend in the electronics industry. By adopting right innovation strategies. By mastering the less tangible, more intuitive qualities of superior design. By diversification of products and step by step or continual improvement. Implementing Global localization strategy.

Samsung electronics innovation and design strategy pdf

Samsung Design Latin America. Located in Sao Paulo.

2 comments

  • Ciset B. 28.04.2021 at 14:24

    How well-developed is your organization's innovation strategy?

    Reply
  • Alessia J. 02.05.2021 at 14:12

    To browse Academia.

    Reply

Leave a reply