Critical Review for Innovation Model Analysis - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theCritical Review for Innovation Model Analysis. Answer: Innovation model analysis of new energy vehicles: taking Toyota, Tesla, and BYD as an example Introduction This article focuses on the vehicle industry with regard to new energy and the innovative models adopted by Toyota, BYD and Tesla Companies. The specific areas of innovation that are analyzed and compared to this paper are the environmental, marketing strategy, innovative track and corporate model (Liu and Meng 2017). Innovation model analysis of new energy vehicles: Toyota Toyota is perhaps the most spread vehicle company across the globe. It is established in 27 countries worldwide with 50 manufacturing facilities and worldwide car sales in over 160 countries. The quick integration of the new energy Toyota vehicle is attributed to its global presence, cooperation with higher institutions of learning, and creation of conducive environment for innovation such as the establishment of research institutions. For instance, The Research Institute (TRI) was established with the cooperation of Toyota and GM Group when it was first introduced in the United States. Tesla Tesla is currently ranked one among the top ten innovative companies in the vehicle manufacturing industry worldwide. Tesla has the advantage of innovation environment hence the reason for its remarkable growth within ten years only and without any experience in the automotive industry. The disruptive innovation of Tesla is attributed to the genius team behind the company production and operation activities (Hardman, Shiu and Steinberger-Wilckens, 2015). With Elon as the most significant member for providing Internet genes; Black in charge of user experience and Tesla CTO who oversees the technological aerospace of the company manufacturing process. BYD This company major in IT to achieve all its competitive advantage in the motor vehicle industry. It combines technologies in IT, vehicle and new energy and is ranked as a high-tech business worldwide. It is well-known for the benefits of its new energy innovation in motor batteries among other leading technologies. Additionally, they produce their batteries and other technology related gadgets for international companies like GM, Chrysler, etc., cooperated with giant global manufacturers to enhance their worldwide brand influence. Marketing and innovative strategy of BYD, Tesla, and Toyota BYD, Tesla, and Toyota have at least adopted the 4P approach in market positioning (Armstrong et al., 2015). Tesla is a luxurious car customized to suit and attract the rich who are in search for super quality and the desire for new things. BYD is the leading company in new energy vehicles in China and is made to suit the public transportation field. This is because of its energy saving and environmental protection features. Toyota is as well known for its hybrid technology car which is also a cushion for unpolluted electronic technology. The authors make four recommendations in four features of new energy vehicle innovation model. First, in the innovative ecological environment, the companies should focus on developing their technology in the areas of electronic control, batteries, and motor because the new energy motor vehicle sector is a high-tech sector. Secondly, market positioning should be aimed at the public transport sector to create awareness and then consider prices after recognition. Third, under the innovation path, the companies should comprehend the technology in new energy automotive to ensure long-term development. Lastly, the best business model should be that which incorporates all sectors and is inclusive of the government development business model because this will factor in much of research and development (Lane et al., 2015). Is Tesla a Disruptor? (And Why the Answer Matters) Tesla is regarded as an innovative disruptor by many market analysts, fanatical customers, and technology-oriented societies. However, there exists abundant evidence against this conclusion. For instance, the current company debt of approximately $10 billion in addition to its additional plan of borrowing $1.5 billion and the problem of transition to mass production. According to Downes and Nunes (2017), Tesla doesnt qualify to be a technology disruptor because the company doesnt meet the essential elements of a successful disruption and the authors further compare it with other companies that have surpassed the disruptor standards. The first evidence of how Tesla isnt a disruptive company is that it is not definite of the kind of disruptive technology it is offering. Tesla has been producing electric cars for ten years, and in fact, the company is not the first to manufacture electric vehicles, and neither is their technology improved than internal combustion. For example, the performance of the Tesla battery is much lower than fossil fuels and may not be much better for the next 50 years. Additionally, the current state of competition in the motor vehicle industry is not promising for Tesla, and thus no guarantee of the company is the leader in any automotive technology. This is also true because the competitors are likely to engage same suppliers like Tesla in addition to Tesla minimizing their advantage of proprietary inventions through its decision of sharing all its patents in 2014 (Karamitsios, 2013). The leading brand of the company, for now, is luxury and quality (Mangram, 2012), but this is a feature that is abundant in the market considering examples like BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes. Regarding market positioning, Tesla is commonly compared superficially with Apple but these companies when analyzed in detail they differ regarding technology disruption. For instance, the iPhone doesnt have the competitively-priced Model 3, but the reinvention of digital cameras and mobile phones and some other products enabled it to a achieve a significant market share. Also, Apple was able to produce millions of new products right from the beginning to the end, unlike Tesla. The authors affirm their arguments by comparing Tesla with right Big Bang Disruption companies such as Netflix and Amazon Kindle. A successful disruption often demands a vigorous manufacturing distribution, constant revenue supply from established products and capacity to supply industry demands within short order. Tesla doesnt meet any of these, and its uncertainty regarding government grants further worsens its situation. Even if the company supplies all its pre-ordered 3s Models on time, the initial excitement for a new product doesnt imply sustainable sales in the future (Trop and Cardwell, 2014). For example, the customers that turned up for the launch of the iWatch were all the likely customers (Mobile Apps, 2013). It is recommended that for Tesla to become a technological disruptor, the company should fully automate its manufacturing and work towards improving its artificial intelligence and robotics because these are some of the technologies that have not been fully ventured into. Critical evaluation of the two articles There is a lot of variation in the articles regarding the evidence provided in support of the conclusions. Liu and Meng (2017) discuss innovation model analysis of new energy vehicles considering three vehicle manufacturing companies namely Toyota, BYD, and Tesla. The study and comparison are conducted considering four aspects of new energy vehicle innovation such as innovative ecological environment, market positioning, creative path and business model. On the contrary, Downes and Nunes (2017) in arguing whether Tesla is a disruptor only considers Tesla but in comparison with companies such as Netflix and Amazon Kindle. The other aspects considered by Downes and Nunes include the financial capacity and revenue of the company as evidence of Tesla not being an innovative company. Thus the article by Liu and Meng is structured and comprehensive than that of Downes and Nunes because in analyzing new energy vehicles, it is proper that various aspects are considered to make an informed de cision. Liu and Meng compares and contrasts innovation model analysis of new energy vehicles using motor vehicle manufacturing companies which are in the same industry. This comparison is unbiased because the companies are likely to face similar challenges in resources, competition, and technology innovation. The contrast and evaluation of Downes and Nunes are somewhat biased because the authors compare Tesla Company with Netflix and Amazon Kindle which happen to be in different industries. The challenges faced by Netflix and Amazon Kindle may not necessarily be similar to those faced by Tesla. Thus the conclusion reached might as well be incomprehensive. For instance, Downes and Nunes list the examples of success disruptor companies not in the vehicle manufacturing sector then concludes that since Tesla doesnt meet any of the qualifications, then it doesnt qualify to be an innovative company. Liu and Meng use experimented scientific business models (Liu and Chen, 2013; Xie et al., 2015, and Wang, Chen and Jiang, 2015) to lay the foundation of their model analysis of the new energy vehicle innovation. Furthermore, the analysts provide some illustrations for each company to explain the market positioning, innovative ecological environment, creative path and the business model innovation. Whereas Downes and Nunes do not cite any researched model to base their conclusion neither do they adopt any scientific method but rather on logical reasoning and comparison with companies of the different sector. Conclusion The discussion on the innovation in the new energy vehicles and which company is a technological disruptor is a debate that has received different conclusions based on the aspects under consideration. This is because many different factors can be considered in determining the leading technology disruptor in the motor vehicle industry. However, new energy vehicle technology innovation needs to be developed further and the products made available to both the private and public sector. References Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., Harker, M. and Brennan, R., 2015.Marketing: an introduction. Pearson Education. Downes, L., Nunes, P., 2017. Is Tesla Really a Disruptor? (And Why the Answer Matters). Harvard Business Review. Hardman, S., Shiu, E. and Steinberger-Wilckens, R., 2015. Changing the fate of Fuel Cell Vehicles: Can lessons be learnt from Tesla Motors?.international journal of hydrogen energy,40(4), pp.1625-1638. Karamitsios, A., 2013. Open innovation in EVs: A case study of Tesla Motors. Accessed on 29 October 2017. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:635929/FULLTEXT01.pdf L.J. Liu, S.B. Chen, 2013. New energy vehicle technology innovation policy based on multi-loop Competition model, Scientific Management Research, (10):41-45. Lane, B.W., MesserBetts, N., Hartmann, D., Carley, S., Krause, R.M. and Graham, J.D., 2013. Government Promotion of the Electric Car: Risk Management or Industrial Policy?.European Journal of Risk Regulation,4(2), pp.227-245. Liu, J.H. and Meng, Z., 2017. Innovation Model Analysis of New Energy Vehicles: Taking Toyota, Tesla and BYD as an Example.Procedia Engineering,174, pp.965-972. Mangram, M.E., 2012. The globalization of Tesla Motors: a strategic marketing plan analysis.Journal of Strategic Marketing,20(4), pp.289-312. Mobile Apps, A.B., 2013. iWatch by Apple. Accessed on 29 October 2017. https://www.abmobileapps.com/iwatch-apple/ Trop, J. and Cardwell, D., 2014. Tesla plans 5 billion battery factory for mass-market electric car.NY Times. Wang, Z.Q., Chen, Y. and Jiang, Z.H., 2015. An input-output analytical method of identification of the advanced technology and core technology: The case study of hybrid electric vehicle technology.Studies in Science of Science,11, pp.1612-1620. Z.M. Xie, Y. Zhang, Z.H. He, et al., 2015. Research on Patent Trend of New Energy Vehicles Industry, China Soft Science, (9):127-141.