Technology is definitely an enabler
Many people mistakenly still find it technology which drives innovation. Yet from the definitions above, that is obviously not the case. It is opportunity which defines innovation and technology which enables innovation. Consider the classic "Build a much better mousetrap" example taught in most business schools. You might have the technology to construct a much better mousetrap, but if you have no mice or the old mousetrap works well, there's no opportunity and then a technology to construct a much better one becomes irrelevant. On one other hand, if you're overrun with mice then a opportunity exists to innovate something utilizing your technology.
Another example, one with which I'm intimately familiar, are electronic devices startup companies. I've been associated with both the ones that succeeded and the ones that failed. Each possessed unique leading edge technologies. The difference was opportunity. Those who failed could not find the opportunity to produce a meaningful innovation using their technology. In fact to survive, these companies had to morph oftentimes into something totally different and if they certainly were lucky they might make the most of derivatives of these original technology. http://yourtechcrunch.com/ More often than not, the original technology wound up in the scrap heap. Technology, thus, is definitely an enabler whose ultimate value proposition is to make improvements to our lives. In order to be relevant, it must be used to generate innovations that are driven by opportunity.
Technology as a competitive advantage?
Many companies list a technology as one of these competitive advantages. Is this valid? In some instances yes, but In most cases no.
Technology develops along two paths - an evolutionary path and a revolutionary path.
A revolutionary technology is the one which enables new industries or enables answers to problems which were previously not possible. Semiconductor technology is a good example. Not only made it happen spawn new industries and products, however it spawned other revolutionary technologies - transistor technology, integrated circuit technology, microprocessor technology. All which provide most of the products and services we consume today. But is semiconductor technology a competitive advantage? Taking a look at the number of semiconductor firms that exist today (with new ones forming every day), I'd say not. What about microprocessor technology? Again, no. A lot of microprocessor companies out there. What about quad core microprocessor technology? Not as numerous companies, but you have Intel, AMD, ARM, and a host of companies building custom quad core processors (Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc). So again, little of a competitive advantage. Competition from competing technologies and comfortable access to IP mitigates the perceived competitive benefit of any particular technology. Android vs iOS is a good example of how this works. Both systems are derivatives of UNIX. Apple used their technology to introduce iOS and gained an earlier market advantage. However, Google, utilizing their variant of Unix (a competing technology), trapped relatively quickly. The reason why with this lie not in the underlying technology, in how the merchandise made possible by those technologies were brought to market (free vs. walled garden, etc.) and the differences in the strategic visions of every company.https://arstechnician.com/
Evolutionary technology is the one which incrementally builds upon the base revolutionary technology. But by it's very nature, the incremental change is easier for a competitor to match or leapfrog. Take for example wireless cellphone technology. Company V introduced 4G products ahead of Company A and while it may have had a brief term advantage, when Company A introduced their 4G products, the benefit due to technology disappeared. The buyer went back to choosing Company A or Company V based on price, service, coverage, whatever, although not based on technology. Thus technology may have been relevant in the short-term, in the long term, became irrelevant.https://techwaa.com/
In today's world, technologies tend to ver quickly become commoditized, and within any particular technology lies the seeds of its own death.
Technology's Relevance
This information was written from the prospective of a finish customer. From a developer/designer standpoint things get murkier. The further one is taken off the technology, the less relevant it becomes. To a developer, the technology will look like a product. An enabling product, but something nonetheless, and thus it is highly relevant. Bose works on the proprietary signal processing technology allow products that meet some market requirements and thus the technology and what it enables is relevant to them. https://techsitting.com/ Their clients are more focused on how it sounds, what's the cost, what's the quality, etc., and less with how it is achieved, thus the technology used is a lot less relevant to them.
