1 The environment

1.1 High Technology: definitions, characteristics, environment, importance

Before somebody can venture into the specific cognitive subject of High Technology (HT), it is deemed purposeful and useful for them to satisfactorily familiarize themselves with the wider framework within which HT is incorporated and from which it follows – the notion of technology.

Technology is derived from the Greek word τέχνη, meaning “art”. Its connection to its root implies a set of techniques or methods which may be employed in order to manufacture, produce, or “build” something. Should one expand the meaning of the word, then what it, essentially, means is “that which men use to control their environment” or, otherwise, “the way by which men dominate their natural environment”.

Depending on the adopted viewpoint, there is a multitude of approaches utilized in order to conceptually define the word technology:

• In case the approach takes place under the light of the dimension offered by Economic Sciences, then Technology is indissolubly intertwined with the efficiency that may be attained by adopting it. It essentially is a toolbox focused approach to the relationship between men and technology, whose value and contribution are assessed based on the economic benefit that may ensue from the application of technology toward the improvement of the efficiency of the productive process. Consequently, it is regarded not only as a founding stone and vital support of economic development but also as a necessary ingredient of personal economic prosperity, because of its fundamental influence on living standards.
• Despite the fact that the economic orientation for delimiting technology is the most common one, it is not, however, the only one; neither is it axiomatically the most important one. An integrated approach toward the concept emphatically dictates the consideration of other dimensions as well, dimensions which, in most cases, do not cancel one another but function complementarily in order to facilitate a multidimensional understanding of the concept.

In this context, one must not forget that the “economic science” employed in order to outline the term earlier, is a subset of the sociological framework wherein (economically active) individuals, structures and the relations amongst them subsist. Through this framework the needs and demands of individuals, as well as of the economy itself, emerge and are satisfied. It suffices for someone to consider the economic and social framework as inextricable constituent parts of a directly inter-affected dynamic system, each element of which feeding and being fed by the other (even if with some time lag), in order to apprehend the “greater” picture: From a sociological viewpoint, technology is an interrelated system of knowledge, processes, methods and apperceptions which stands as the necessary and sufficient convention in order to make the satisfaction of human needs feasible, an integral part of which are also social ones.

Finally, a common constituent of the approaches, from a philosophical standpoint, is to treat technology as a basic pillar from the evolution of the known civilization. The subject of controversial criticism, technology is at times considered as the catalyst for integration and self-realization while, at other times, as a contributing factor for the alienation and maladjustment of people.

Whichever viewpoint one has adopted and whatever cognitive subject filter is employed as an interpretative tool, it is important to approach technology in the context of the role it plays with respect to the satisfaction of human needs in their entirety.

It is also important to underline that technology is a human activity, the subject of which is the well-being and comfort of people.

1.1.2 Technology

Technology is a transformation force. It is something much wider than a system set of tools which probe or are extensions of our bodily movements. It not only constitutes a sturdy and reliable material for technical achievements and economic accomplishments but also functions as a vehicle for the manifestation of perceptions subsumed to the sphere of social and cultural intricacies. It is a human cognitive intervention which pervades, grows, jaunts and outflows to and from the world surrounding us; shapes it; but is also shaped by it. It would amount to no hyperbole for someone to suggest that Technology is closely interrelated with almost any form of human activity – that is it essentially constitutes an intrinsic variable thereof. Moreover, to possess it, even on a rudimentary level, is nowadays an elementary condition for someone to be harmoniously and functionally included in the social, economic, cultural and working processes.

Technology and humans have a bidirectional so close that one could define it as one, particularly resistant to time, system, while the substance of its parts is in a direct and dynamic interrelation. The double identity borne by each constituent part of this system – namely, its simultaneous identity as a subject and the object of the shaping influences from and toward the other part – largely defines the entirety of the expressions not only of each fold related to humans but also of the “imprint”, the mark humans leave.

Technology emerged as the most effective approach by a rational and creative being in order to function as the vehicle that would allow this being to shape the coordinates defining its existence. As the medium for the satisfaction of man’s multidimensional needs, technology depends on humans. On the other hand, humans depend on technology, since technology – via its penetration and diffusion – constitutes the basic pillar/carrier for the satisfaction of human needs.

What is cited earlier only serves to accentuate what Pythagoras proclaimed, namely, that humans are, throughout the eons, the measure for all things. The skeptics of the utility or even the purposefulness of the existence of this relation, where humans are the measure, the creators as well as the subjects of the influence of technology, advocate that the artificial extension of their capabilities frequently fashions a false picture of personal happiness and self-fulfillment. They criticize technology on the basis that beyond its contribution to the survival of our species, it, ultimately, became the measure of its progress. That it frequently becomes an end in itself and the field of its own evolution, leading humans to something alien to their nature.

The expansive discourse that has been developed throughout the ages and the literally countless dimensions via which one can approach the concept of technology are the main reasons for the existence of many – and frequently ragtag – definitions. One, be the person a disputant or apologist of a greater or lesser emphasis on viewpoints stressing the anthropocentric hue, or driven by a background oriented/influenced by a philosophical, or sociological or economic basis may adopt some other, different approach as the most firmly grounded.

Fischer and Pry (1971) emphasize the role and contribution of Technology in catering for needs, as such, are defined and delimited by the overall value system on each occasion. It grants power to those who control it and control its applications. It includes our efforts to shape, control, morph and ever impose our will on our environment, via the involvement of technology on the use and exploitation of resources.

Technology is connected to the effectiveness of the application of our skill to “do” things.

The aforementioned, as the statement of a definition, could be further particularized – and, correspondingly, be subjected to the entailed limitations of a more specific approach – should Technology be defined as a toolbox – a set of methods, processes, structured approaches and techniques which operates catalytically, systemically and collaboratively with the other productive factors, assisting them toward the objectives posed in the context of the productive process (Papageorgiou, 1990).

A similarly oriented (with respect to the productive process) approach attempts to signify that an integral part with an almost universal participation in the quiver of Technology is the knowledge that is applicable to the productive process. It may take the form of technical information relating to aspects or the whole of the production process, or the products, or it may be expressed in the context of the transformation of the production factors to tangible products or services. It may even include the cognitive background of Managerial science which participates both horizontally and vertically in the organization, management, planning and control of the productive process.

In its more expanded version, the definition of technology shall cover both specific technological systems, as well as the economic-production system, but also manifestations of social structures and practices (Vakalios, 2002).

In the context of a broader delimitation of the term, Technology could be viewed as a unified and complex system of material elements and processes that are necessary for the integration of some functional action. A founding stone in this set of heterogeneous elements (machinery; design, calculation and control methodologies, processes and techniques) are also the thinking and theory schema that set and document the aforementioned system.

Besides, however, of the system via which needs are satisfied, minimized or staved, Galbraith introduces another dimension of technology, by involving science and underlining in parallel the role of scientific-organized knowledge: by technology one also refers to the systematic application of scientific or other structured knowledge, in order to facilitate practical purposes.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO’s) Dictionary of Social Sciences (Gould and Kolb, 1964) attempts to include and incorporate the principal points of the preceding approaches: Technology is considered the whole or an organized part of the knowledge that exists and regards science, the discoveries that have taken place, the productive processes of the present as well as those of the past, the energy resources and reserves, but also circulation and information, that are associated with the improvement of the production of tangible and intangible products. The same source approaches the concept from a socio-anthropological background (thus limiting the scope of the approach) and cites that technology is defined as the sum of available knowledge for the production of tools and all kinds of artifacts which are aimed at the exercise of technical and manual activities and extraction and collection of materials.

Independently from the origins of thought, or the predispositions of any kind which shape the orientation of perception and the interpretative framework, or even the temporal circumstances or cognitive background, the following may be considered as the less contested and more objective pylons for delimiting the concept of technology:

• Technology is a mighty force of transformation bringing a reformational force of leverage not only on the economic, social, political, cultural and anthropological level but also one that is evidently and almost axiomatically involved in every manifestation of human activity and/or of the results thereof.
• Technology influences and frequently forms perception, apperceptions, the bio-theory, and the system of values of the “initiated”, but at the same time it is being affected by, formed, shaped and evolves because of their existence and in parallel to these. It constitutes a complex, multileveled and dynamic system (an integral ingredient of which are humans), the constituents of which are at a continuous dialectic interrelation and exchange of influences.
• Technology is composed, grows together, is produced, expressed, produces and requires a broad set of elements, material and immaterial, of an intellectual or not process and substance, the degree of participation and involvement of which is ever changing.
• Since its birth, the objective aim of Technology has always been to facilitate humans. More specifically, the probing and expansion of humans’ abilities (physical strength, skills and dexterities, senses, communication, cognitive skills, thinking, science, creativity, etc.) and the acquirement of new ones in order to improve living quality.
• Its almost universal participation in human activities constitutes the principal reason for this extraordinary breadth of inter-temporally possible and different approaches. The different viewpoints may rest on heterogeneous bases with ambiguous and possibly contrasting orientations, correspondingly producing heterogeneous (and perhaps even mutually exclusive) conclusions with respect to the delimitation and the sign of the participation of this concept to the welfare of man.

1.1.3 Technology and science

There are very close ties between Technology and Science, but this should not lead one to the misconception that they are two absolutely overlapping or synonymous concepts. And while the average Joe considers technology to be the applied implementation and practical application of steadfast, commonly accepted and documented scientific knowledge, however, the array of influences exchanged between technology and science is bidirectional in nature and governed by complexity.

In reality, technology has historically appeared several hundred years before science, since its first recoded emergence of the latter dates back some four centuries. Furthermore, across the entire spectrum of their historical common course, Technology has been to a large extend ahead of Science, given that the forcefulness that drives technological changes precedes the full, documented and structured understanding of the “asocial” systematic and detailed scientific knowledge and interpretation.

And while science is a body of systematically structured and organized knowledge, which is composed systematically from parts of organized material (Karvounis, 1995), Technology is a body of knowledge pertaining to specific activities, processes, methods and techniques, which produce specific and practical results, act in specified manners and produce specific effects (even if the “fastidious” science has not yet been able to decode their causes).

It would be extremely shortsighted and limiting to adopt the viewpoint of causality, directed from science to technology. As Fischer and Pry (1971) observe, approaching the concept of technology solely as an excipient of applied science, which is just a subset of the breadth of connections between Science and Technology. If Technology were limited only to the spectrum of what can be scientifically explained, then the human race would have followed a very different course. The definition of Technology offered by Fischer as the set of ways envisioned by men to improve their lives, implies, on one hand, the existence of purposefulness which is manifested in a positivist manner. Of course, Technology makes frequent use of scientific knowledge in order to be further developed. Consequently, when one refers to the development of new technology, there are two variables functioning as its pillars: existing technology and existing science.

That which needs to be emphatically stressed with respect to the nature and degree of equality on the level of influences in the relation between science and technology is that the latter does not trail behind; it is not a follower or a passive receiver of the configuring schema of the first.

Technology affects science as the provider of an immense magnitude of empirical knowledge which science then organizes and structures, while based on it, science shapes, tests, checks and amends its theories in order to understand and interpret in an objective manner the real world and the causality relations that govern it.

Additionally, Technology, by means of its dynamically evolutionary nature, acts as a tracer for the orientation of where science will place its emphasis and the outlining of future fields of its action and application. It was cited earlier that technological progress depends on science, and, consequently, the expansion of the limits of understanding signifies the conditions for technological progress.

And while the earlier reasoning appears to be more self-catering in the framework of an equal relation, one, however, must not forget the purposefulness to which we referred previously. Technological discoveries signify significant improvements in the levels of social and economic utility. This, in itself, can be considered as an adequate and sufficient criterion for a deeper scientific interpretation and understanding.

Finally, technology is very frequently considered as the provider of tools for science, tools that function as aides for its further development and promotion.

1.2 Definitions of High Technology by (inter)national organizations and its delimitation vis-à-vis its distinguishing features

1.2.1 High Technology: definitions and features attributed to it by national/international organizations

It is true, to a degree, that the “definitions” pursuing to offer a reference framework for High Technology are roughly “as many as the people who study High Technology”. For example, the definition of High Tech industry offered by the Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress in 1982 defines it as that “which is involved in the design, development and launching of new products or/and innovative production procedures, via the systematic implementation and application of scientific and technical knowledge”.

The majority of the descriptions/definitions of High Technology may be grouped into two categories. One category includes definitions/descriptions provided by government sources or international organizations, while the other includes those definitions employed and adopted by researchers.

With respect to the first category, one may observe that the High Tech sector is classified based on specific criteria, such as the number of technical staff, the magnitude of the research undertaken, development plans or and the number of standards that have taken place in an industry. For example, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies industrial sectors based on the ratio of employment for the Research & Development (R&D) department. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses a similar definition, defining High Tech in terms of the ratio of R&D department expenditures with respect to the added value of each specific industry, while the American National Science Foundation assesses the intensity or the ratio of R&D expenses to net sales.

Of course, there has been criticism of such kinds of classifications due to the inherent ambiguities they include. Luker Jr. and Lyons (1997) consider the definition offered by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to be too broad, meaning that it includes, on account of its breadth, certain industries the products of which have been only marginally amended (e.g., the tobacco industry) and with respect to which a technological leap has not occurred for several years. Such a kind of classification may also include of industries which attain large volumes of production while employing a fairly unskilled workforce and standardized procedures.

Despite the fact that the ratio of scientific-technical personnel may be such that justifies its characterization as “High Technology”, the overwhelming majority of knowledge, however, is utilized, as Mohr, Sengupta and Slater (2005) point out, to marginally change the features of established products in slowly evolving and intensely targeted by advertising markets. On the other hand, Richard Lipkin (1996) observes that despite the fact that the aforementioned definition is quite broad, the classification employed may, simultaneously, be so shortsighted so as to exclude the development of new products or processes by employees possessing knowledge simply and only due to the fact that the sector where such employees belong may not possess the necessary and sufficient ratio to be characterized as High Technology. Finally, the fact that many PC manufacturers mass produce components, also using production routines, and, in many cases, employ a minimum number of technical personnel, accentuates another inherent defect in this kind of definition: These industries are classified as high tech, due to the fact that they exhibit high capital-to-labor ratio and require labor of a fairly low scientific level.

To avoid the implicit weaknesses of these type of definitions, which approach High Tech based on an industrial viewpoint, many researchers provide definitions based on the underlying common features.

1.2.2 High Technology: delimiting High Technology by virtue of its distinctive features

1.2.2.1 Common characteristics of High Technology markets

Regis McKenna (1991) considers the HT market sector to be characterized by complex products, a large number of competing enterprises, consumer confusion and fast change.

Shanklin and Ryans (1984) term as High Tech any company participating in a process which exhibits High Technology features: “The company requires a sound scientific technical base, new technology can fast render older ones obsolete and, since as new technologies emerge their applications either create demand or revolutionize demand”.

Other common features shared by HT markets include, according to John George, Allen Weiss and Shantanu Dutta (1999), the following:

1. a Cost/unit: Cost structure applicable in HT markets when the technical know-how enclosed in a product/service represents a significant part of the value of the product or service is, usually, as follows: Production costs for the first unit are very high compared to the cost for reproduction (the production of the next units).
2. b Increase revenues due to demand (or network externalities or bandwagon effect): This feature refers to the increase in the value of the product stemming from the increase of the adoption of its use by consumers. In other words, the usefulness of a product – innovation is a function of the number of its users. As soon as the market share representing the critical mass of consumers is attained, the value increases exponentially.
3. c Exchange problems: When knowledge represents a major part of a product’s value, the exchange between the seller and the buyer transforms into an intellectual property transaction. Exchange problems emerge when it is difficult to ascribe a value to knowledge, especially when such knowledge is implicit and nested in both people and organizational routines.
4. d Dissemination of knowledge: It refers to the collaborations during the creation and transmission of knowledge, resulting in the further increase of the existing knowledge depository. In simple terms, every innovation shapes the conditions for a greater number of innovations to flourish. In other words, the building of knowledge on knowledge.

Gardner, Johnson, Lee and Wilkinson (2000) observe that ultimately, and following intense and in-depth research, the definition of High Technology (what they see as a term in wide use) is a very tough job. They conclude that the superficially easy task of coming up with a definition that may be generalized does not exist either in the technical or the managerial bibliography.

Rexroad (1983) attempts to define High Technology as follows: “the segment of technology considered to be nearer to the leading edge or the state of art of a particular field. It is that technology inherent in emerging from the laboratory into practical application”. Grunenwald and Vernon (1988) define High Tech products/services “as those devices, procedures, techniques or sciences that are characterised by state-of-the-art development and have typically short and volatile lives”.

Link (1987) comments that High Technology, due to its intrinsic transitivity, defines itself almost self-deterministically. He observes that it is a moving “label” which must be detached from old products and be ascribed to a continuously expanding set of complex business activities.

Samili and Wills (1986) consider that High Technology comprises of a sector of industries which goes beyond computers to a multitude of research industries, such as biotechnology, pharmaceutics, chemistry and aerodynamics.

Rosen, Schroeder and Purinton (1988) adopt the view that there are features in High Technology markets which are able to differentiate these products from other product categories. Besides, even under Porter’s (1980) view on emerging industries, it follows that marketing strategy for High Tech must be different.

Gardner, Johnson, Lee and Willkinson (2000) propose for the purposes of their research work an approach that follows from the combination of the technological levels with the view that consumers have of innovation. This viewpoint is consistent with Veryzer’s (1998) approach, according to which the innovation of a product is deemed to lie between dimensions which reflect the changes in the utility gained from the product, its technological capabilities and the usage standards for its consumption. The definition that follows from the aforementioned interaction for High Technology products is

Economists also strived to find some acceptable definition for High Technology. But the general emphasis on innovative inflow measures, on innovative product outflow and industrial development, that initially rested on statistical data, is not useful for defining High Technology products.

Should one wish to escape the confines of the academic field, then one will observe that High Technology becomes the subject of definitions based on a somewhat different dimension. In the context of such a logic, “people dedicated to action” (e.g., the heads of marketing) approach a different delimitation of what High Technology is. The field of High Technology is crystallized for them via the features manifested by its products.

Such a feature is that they are being developed and replaced at fast rates. Moore’s Law, named after the founder of Inter, characteristically cites that the number of transistors per memory circuit doubles every 18 months.

1.2.2.2 Uncertainty

High Tech products require a lot of resources to be invested in research and development.

Moriarty and Kosnik (1989) combine the definitions provided by Regis McKenna and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, that considers that any sector where the number of technical staff employed and the R&D expenses are double than that of the average of other sectors can be termed as a High Tech sector, thus finding to common dimensions which they ultimately feel that characterize High Technology markets:

1. a Market uncertainty
2. b Technology uncertainty

With respect to the first dimension, it suggests that market uncertainty can be identified with the type and limit for which customers’ needs may be satisfied by technology. It cites the difference between the marketer and the salesperson, pursuant to the principle formulated by Ted Levitt, as a response to the previous issue, suggesting that the marketer views the entire productive process as a sequence where the effort to discover, create and satisfy any of the consumer’s needs has been fully integrated.

The entire issue is posed through the viewpoint of understanding and satisfying customer needs that is adopted by this fully customer-centric philosophy. And this is so, since in High Tech markets, potential clients are not in a position where they could “articulate” their needs. Market uncertainty is, therefore, composed as the constituent of five main causes:

1. 1 What needs will be satisfied by a new technology?
2. 2 How will needs change in the future?
3. 3 Will the market adopt the standards of the industry?
4. 4 How fast will new technology proliferate?
5. 5 How large is the potential market?

With respect to the first question it is very possible for consumers not to fully realize which of their needs will be satisfied by new technology. With respect to the second, and provided the needs are clarified, it is possible for them to be the subjects of fast and unexpected changes, as the result of chain reactions to the swift changes to the environment. Furthermore, there is still the question if the market will ultimately adopt the new standards, so as for the products that cover such needs to enjoy a degree of compatibility with their auxiliary products. The growth and spread of new technology are very difficult to predict and ultimately – also as the result of the preceding four concerns – it is extremely difficult to predict the size of the potential market.

Moore (1991) very insightfully summarizes all the preceding to an acronym: FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. He employs the FUD factor to describe the fear, uncertainty and doubt overcoming consumers with respect to what problems will be solved or what needs will be covered by new technology, as well as with respect to how well it will perform with respect to these. The bewilderment ensuing from such emotions means that potential customers may postpone adopting an innovation, that they may demand a high degree of education and information on an innovation and that they require post-purchase affirmation and empowering, which will eradicate all doubts. Ketteringham and White (1984) define technology as an industrial application that requires scientific or technical knowledge. The process of technological innovation may be considered as a process for decreasing uncertainty or, alternatively, a process for the collection and processing of data, where uncertainty is defined as a difference in the volume of data required in order to complete a specific objective and the volume of data already existing in the enterprise’s depository of knowledge. Information, as adopted as a concept in this instance, is verbally codified knowledge. And knowledge, according to Glaser, Abelson and Garrison (1983), includes (1) facts, truths or principles; (2) the understanding that naturally follows from experience; (3) practices; (4) ideas or processes certified with respect to their validity by prior testing; and (5) the findings of valid research.

According to the viewpoint adopted by Souder and Moenaert (1992), the view that the process of technological innovation may be also considered as those data processing activities that aim to decrease uncertainty is commonly accepted. With respect to technological uncertainty, Rowland, Moriartiy and Kosnik (1989) observe that it results from five factors:

• The uncertainty of whether the new product will function as expected
• The uncertainty if it is going to be consistent with its predesignated delivery time
• The uncertainty of whether the supplier will manage to cater for post-purchase service issues
• The uncertainty emerging from the existence of possible collateral impacts caused by the product or service
• And, finally, the uncertainty of whether this new technology will render the existing technology obsolete and decommissioned

According to Rowland et al. (1989), uncertain is the technology which ensues from the fact that we do not know if the technology – or the company that will provide it, will be true to its promise that it will cover these specific needs, provided, of course, if said needs have been articulated.

The first constituent of uncertainty deals with the lack of information regarding the operating performance of the product – whether it will actually do what the salesperson promises it will, while the second one reflects delays by producers to have the product ready by the pre-designated date – a fact that is the rule rather than the exception. The third constituent of technological uncertainty is associated with the lack of “experience” relating to the performance of a product in the market – it is not tested as mature technologies are – and whether maintenance problems will, ultimately, be dealt with expediently and effectively.

With respect to Greece and the computer systems market, research carried out in 26 enterprises and organizations gave clear indications on the upgraded and now reinforced role that maintenance is now called to play, with respect to the behavior of potential customers for computer systems. Service and maintenance gather greater weighted gravity both with respect to the cost for the purchase of a computer system, as well as from the supplier’s reputation.

This can be principally attributed to the fact that enterprises-buyers of computer systems have had bad experiences from the non-timely, deficient support from suppliers and the realization of the burdensome financial and business consequences it entails.

Rendered as a figure, what is suggested by Rowland et al. (1989) as ultimately differentiating High Tech markets may be condensed as shown in Figure 1.4.

Moreover, the authors attempt to classify (in a matrix) the potential cases that marketing will be called to address, depending on the degree of the participation of technological uncertainty and market uncertainty and possible combinations thereof.

Using this matrix, the authors attempt to define High Tech marketing by juxtaposing it to its other three kinds. Where there is a low degree of both kinds of uncertainty, it regards the application of a known/mature technology to known needs. Where there is high technological uncertainty and low market uncertainty, a new technology appears, coming to satisfy an existing need, which is conscious and existing on the side of the consumer. In a case where there is high market uncertainty and simultaneously low technology uncertainty, technology changes relatively slowly, but it is difficult to predict consumer needs. The coexistence of a high degree of uncertainty both with respect to market and technology is also the landmark for the activation of the existence of High Tech marketing.

Gardner (1990) adds a third to these two dimensions of uncertainty, considering it as the common characteristic of HT markets: the intensity of competition. The intensity of competition refers to changes taking place in the competitive environment, namely, as to who the competitors are, what their product offers are and which are the tools they use to compete.

Jakkie Mohr (2005) cites three sources for the intensity of competition which contribute, in a chain-reaction fashion, to the increase of the degree of uncertainty. The first uncertainty follows from the fact that one does not know which companies are the potential future competitors, while the fact that in the majority of cases new technologies are introduced and commercialized by “parachuting” companies renders HT markets a treacherous and inhospitable environment.

Mohr (2005) considers the second kind of uncertainty to be created by the tactics mentioned earlier and which are employed by outsiders. Their competitive tactics may be known to their natural field of activity, but they are unknown in the HT field they infiltrate and create confusion in the players already existing in this field. Hamel (1997) suggests that ultimately it is these new players that shape the rules, changing the profile of the market for all players engaged in it.

Finally, the new competition emerges in the guise of a new product platform or the new ways for satisfying customer needs or resolving their problems. To give an example, one of the greatest sources of uncertainty that the personal computer sector was called to address in 2000 was the new “informational devices”, which could be used to access the Internet. Hewlett Packard decided to simultaneously focus on PCs and informational devices.

Jakkie Mohr (2005) considers this intersection of the three sources of uncertainty as defining the area where High Tech subsists. Indeed, she advocates that the simultaneous coexistence of all three factors is that which renders such uniqueness to this environment.

With respect to uncertainty, Souder and Moenaert (1992) observe that one may distinguish among three categories of uncertainty: the uncertainty stemming from consumers (namely, the uncertainty with respect to their needs), technological uncertainty (namely, uncertainty with respect to the optimal technology that must be adopted) and, finally, competitive uncertainty (namely, uncertainty with respect to the competition). Each one of these three sources of uncertainty, Katz and Kahn (1996) suggest, originates from that is considered, by general systems theory, as external environment. These factors may interact, but this is by no means necessary. For example, the uncertainty associated with consumers may fluctuate independently of technological uncertainty. But both contribute to a large extent in determining competition uncertainty. As Abell (1980) puts it, if a company is uncertain with respect to the constituents of its customers and its consuming groups or/and alternative technologies, then it follows that it will also be uncertain with respect to its competitive placement in the sector.

Despite all the preceding discussion, all organizations must decrease their competitive, technological and market (consumer) uncertainty, and this is a prerequisite in order for them to develop successful innovations. The basic means an organization possesses for the collection of data for each one of the three uncertainties are the sources. Thus, it should come as no surprise that research has shown that the degree of an enterprise’s effectiveness to allocate its resources among the human, financial and technological sectors is greatly associated with the success of the innovation.

The fact that the same resources must be allocated so as to decrease uncertainty introduces a fourth type of uncertainty, resources uncertainty.

The greater the uncertainty with respect to competition, technology and customers (market) is, the greater the uncertainty with respect to the type and magnitude of the resources the company needs becomes.

A different school of thought emphasizes potential uncertainties between the market, technology and competition ones. Clark (1985) emphasizes the competitive side, considering that since competition frequently aims at the same market share with the same or similar products and by utilizing alternative technologies or strategies, this will affect both the survivability and the success of the organization’s innovation process.

1.2.2.3 Innovation

Another feature of a High Tech product is the qualitative magnitude of the innovation it exemplifies. It is considered that it shall bear changes to its market and that it, consequently, will spearhead the relegating of other products.

High Technology, as can been seen from the definition and the description of its environment so far, is associated with innovation, either directly or indirectly. Innovation is the outflow of High Technology, and High Technology is the natural setting for the creation of innovation. In other words, in most cases, High Technology is the “vehicle”, tool or medium via and in which an innovation will be developed. While even in those cases where the conception of an innovation was not assisted, at its inception, by High Technology, it is almost given that High Technology will play the role of the helper and facilitator for its development and transubstantiation into a product.

According to Jakkie Mohr (2005), there are two kinds of innovation, which are determined from the intensity by which innovation participates in the product and the degree of innovation, that is, ascribed to the product.

Radical innovation is something so different that it cannot be compared with some existing and utilized practice or even conception. These kinds of innovation employ High Technology and establish new markets. They shape changes in the way things are perceived which “make history”. In marketing terminology they are referred to as discontinuous innovations. Others, such as Abernathy and Utterback (1978), refer to such innovations using the term revolutionary. Shanklin and Ryans (1984) consider such innovations to be developed by the side of the offer, namely, by enterprises aiming to commercialize the findings of the company’s R&D department, since innovations are developed by this department, which will then give the stimulus to the marketing department to seek and find the appropriate conversion of innovation into a commercialized product. This, namely, is that kind of innovation that is developed without the preexistence of the underwriting of its conversion to something useful and without the process for its creation to depend on the possible applications of said innovation in products. On the other hand, a radical innovation may be developed as a response to some existing need or as a way to tackle an emerging one.

The fact, however, remains that irrespective of whether radical innovation originates as the product of scientific research that then finds ways of useful application (on the side of offer) or is an effective means created to offer a more integrated, modern and effective solution to some (existing or emerging) problem, innovation by itself creates a new market.

The second kind of innovation is incremental innovation. In sharp contrast to the term discontinuous which is used for radical innovation, this innovation is distinguished by its duration. It emerges gradually and essentially is an extension – a marginal evolution of methods and practices already in use. In direct contrast with the term revolutionary, such innovation could be coined “arising”. The products ensuing from them will, according to Rangan, Kasturi and Bartus (1995), by close substitutes of already existing products and both consumers and producers will clearly realize the limits of their capabilities. Incremental innovations, indeed, relate to markets the products of which have clearly established features and to consumers who can describe their needs. They originate and emerge, therefore, as pointed out by Shanklin and Ryans (1984), from the side of demand.

Of course, the proviso must be underlined that the earlier descriptions regard those uncοmpounded cases where there is a full concurrence of opinions between producers and consumers on the type of innovation. Rangan, Kasturi and Bartus (1995) recommend a matrix which includes, besides commonly characterized innovations, the combinations of cases, for which there is no agreement. Where companies perceive of an innovation as radical, while consumers feel it is an incremental/marginal innovation, we have delusionary products. The same authors characterize the opposite case as shadow products.

According to Chandy and Tellis (1998), innovation can be rendered the protagonist in a “David and Goliath” scenario.

Foster (1986) and Tushman and Anderson (1986) suggest that radical innovations are able to destroy company assets. Difficult to acquire, clients may desert a company with which they collaborated until now as soon as an innovation used by some other company increases the performance per dollar paid. Thus, high-cost investments and abilities become obsolete and the company is rendered noncompetitive. On the other hand, Wind and Mahajan (1997) deem that a radically innovative product may be the source of a competitive advantage for the company introducing it to the market. According to Geroski, Machin and Reene (1993), the results of innovation may be of great magnitude, positive and long lasting.

It is considered by many scholars, such as Wesley (1995), that the bulk of the bibliography has focused on the size of a company as the key organizational variable that affects radical product innovation. Other authors have proposed different variables:

Damanpour (1991) underlines that the way a company is organized may play an important role in its performance with respect to radically innovative products. Olson, Orville, Walker and Ruekert (1995) feel that high level of autonomy inside the company shape an environment that favors the development of innovations, while Ettlie, Bridges and O’Keefe (1984) underline the role of “champion products” in promoting innovation. Moorman and Miner (1997) acknowledge the results of organizational information flows and organizational memory on the new product creation level. Having said this, Kleinschmidt and Cooper (1991) consider research in this field to be limited, noncontinuous and lacking. There is, that is, no integrated framework to adequately and sufficiently explain how organizational factors affect radical product innovation.

Technological innovation is delimited by technological innovation as any product, process or entity would be delimited, the development of which presupposes that the initiating entity invests human, monetary and technical resources so as to acquire new or unknown technologies or to combine already known ones but in a novel and new way.

A school of thought considering innovation as a processing for bridging the information gap between user needs and opportunities of a technological nature. People and groups trap, connect and exploit the reservoir of knowledge in order to tackle uncertainties with respect to needs and requirements users are conscious of and with respect to both existing products but also to potential technological solutions.

The bibliographical survey by Chandy and Tellis (1998) proposes two dimensions common across all definitions offered on innovation. The first dimension is technology. This factor determines the extend by which the technology involved in a product differs from previous technologies. The second dimension – market – determines the degree by which a new product satisfies key-needs of consumers in a better way than already existing products. The research they undertook led them to consider two levels for each factor (high and low), namely, four types (combining innovation with products):

• Incremental (marginal) product innovation: This is, namely, the combination of fairly low technological differentiation (compared to already-existing technologies), with a relevantly low contribution to the satisfaction of the consumer’s needs (compared to the satisfaction that the consumer would have enjoyed from already existing products of an already-tested technology).
• Market Revolution: Despite the fact that in this case technology continues to be only marginally differentiated, the ensuing product, however, offers considerably higher levels of satisfaction to consumers compared to the already-existing ones.
• Technological Revolution: In this case and despite the fact that the adopted technology differs fundamentally from the already used one, it is not capable of improving the satisfaction return for consumers.
• Radical innovation: This is the combination of high levels for both dimensions, which implies the simultaneous existence of spectacularly greater levels of satisfaction which ensues from the use of a fundamentally new technology. It must be noted that the authors define the satisfaction the customer enjoys always in relation to the monetary units the customer pays to acquire it.

Foster (1986) and Utterback (1994), observe that these four different types of innovation are interrelated by a significant dynamic, curves (S) of technological innovation (Figure 1.4). Technology curves are S-shaped due to the fact that a given technology (e.g., T₁) initially improves consumer satisfaction at an increased rate when it is first introduced, while during its maturity the rate decreases and its gradient changes. During the course of the life of such a technology, a new technology emerges. When it appears it is at a disadvantage compared to T₁ with respect to the satisfaction it offers to consumers. It is precisely this phase when one talks of Technological Revolution. By the passage of time and due to intense research, the new technology, Τ₂, begins to increase the levels of satisfaction it offers at an accelerated rate and thus to mark its own positive inclination. At the next phase it has completely superseded both technology Τ₁, as well as the advantages it offers to consumers satisfaction-wise compared to Τ₁. It is precisely at this point that the product which incorporates this technology moves to the sphere of radical innovation. Golder and Tellis (1993) support, via empirical research, that it is precisely this point that signifies a change in sales behavior.

The users of Τ_1,, threatened by Τ₂, strive to improve on the benefits offered by Τ₁. An incremental innovation may ensue from such efforts or even a market revolution. Having said this, marginal improvements move at much lesser rates than Τ₂, and therefore, Τ₁ is unavoidably replaced by Τ₂, which is now designated as the dominant technology. Of course, and in due time, Τ₂ will also run the same course and become itself obsolete.

1.2.2.4 Innovation–technology–dissemination of technology/innovation

Drucker (1985) defines innovation as an action that renders a new wealth-generating capacity to resources. Thus, according to Drucker, innovation creates economic resources. The concept of the economic resource as an element, however, is devoid of meaning unless a specific use is designated for said element. On the other hand, technology, as a term, refers to the following elements:

• The hardware, that is, the objects produced
• The techniques and processes (such as the processes related to materials production)
• Full systems for the production of materials (including individuals engaged)

At the same time, technology is utilized by people as the “basic standard” (Kline, 1991) as a means in order to increase its own force, in the sense of its capacity to help us attain objectives that would otherwise seem beyond our grasp, or at attaining them faster, cheaper and more effectively.

According to this approach, technology is a social-technical system, as it includes both technical elements as well as a social organization, economic particulars and legal and statutory parameters, among others. In this light, the full understanding of innovation in technological systems presupposes the understanding of many of their constituents and of the kind of correlations that develop between them.

Socio-technical systems – and technology, in particular – exhibit great complexity, while they, simultaneously, also involve not only a great number of individuals and materials but also multiple interactions between people and people and people and materials. This makes forecasting with respect to the entire system difficult. Despite all this, some estimates may be put forward with respect to their parts. Learning and improving entire socio-technical systems can be attained through the experience from inside the system and through the feedback that is developed. It is for this reason that feedback in the context of such system must remain open, respond expediently and be clear and precise.

An innovation may improve the performance of a socio-technical system, through interactions taking place across five fields:

• The production process
• Social rearrangements in the production system
• Economic or legal issues
• Marketing (socio-technical systems for distribution or use)
• The system as a whole

A broader definition of innovation: innovation is every change to the socio-technical production, distribution or usage systems, that offers improvements to cost, quality or the service of customers and employees.

1.2.2.4.1 Innovation models

The linear model, which denotes a serial temporal presentation of phenomena. Such a model is fairly simplified, based on several assumptions, while it does not take appropriate account of elements which may or may not be important for innovation.

The chain-linked model (Kline, 1985) is deemed appropriate for the process of innovation for two reasons. The first reason is that it includes all processes of this procedure which are deemed significant – it does not omit, that is, any important process. The second reason regards the fact that the model implies its proper function, provided it has been correctly applied.

When people innovates, they utilize the entire reservoir of technical knowledge, together with the scientific knowledge accumulated over time. This stockpile of technical knowledge includes, on one hand, scientific principles but also includes other elements, such as mechanical analyses for categories of problems, the science itself, codes, techniques, know-how and so on. The mind and body of technologically specialized people is also a great reservoir of technological knowledge.

In the chain-linked models of innovation, knowledge is differentiated from research. This is done for two reasons: The first is that knowledge regards a state of operating and can be accumulated over time. Research, on the other hand, is a process and has, therefore, a beginning and an end – thus it is temporary. The second reason relates to how much knowledge acts as the stimulus to begin the process of design, while research takes the baton when knowledge fails to offer design solutions, due to the higher cost of research, the greater requirements in time and its more problematic production – compared to the case of the simple deployment of existing knowledge.

1.2.2.4.2 Innovation according to Steele

Steele (1989) designates innovation as the creation and introduction (of any kind) of change that ensues as the result of a deliberate action, focused on a specific issue. The author also suggests that such changes must create value for the customers and improve the conditions for the viability of an enterprise.

Depending on their magnitude, such changes may lead to small changes or big discoveries; thus, covering a great spectrum of innovations. What differs between different kinds of innovations is the level of risk, the level of uncertainty and the level of needs in terms of resources that complement each category.

1.2.2.4.3 Key elements regarding innovation

Uncertainty is the first key element of innovation. Uncertainty may derive from the lack of information, from technical-financial issues for which there is no available solution but can also result from an existing weakness in assessing the consequences of a decision or action.

The second key element of innovation is its close dependence on the progress exhibited by science and scientific knowledge.

A third element is the trend emerging as the result of the necessity for additional scientific research. This can be seen either through the increase of the level of technology employed in the new methods for the manufacture of products or in the efforts to promote new products or/and technologies themselves.

A fourth element relates to the nature and conditions for research, where vertically organized laboratories with bureaucratized research prevail.

A fifth element regards the limitations posed by the temporal interval that intervenes from the moment a scientific discovery is made until the moment such is applied on a product which is characterized as ready to be launched in the market.

A sixth element which emerges is the observation that we come across innovations less frequently in self-inclusive sectors and more in the areas of “contact” between different sectors, a view expressed also by Leontief (1993). Three features are contributing toward this: cross-sectorial information exchange, the increased complexity of innovations and the increased interdependence of innovations.

A seventh characteristic is the fact that a great percentage of the efforts made toward innovation results in failure.

The last element is the observation and changes to technology cannot be described as flexible responses to market conditions: this change is directed based on the most evolved form of an existing technology, while the nature of each technology determined the conditions under which products and methods are incorporated in the shifting economic conditions and the technological change is a cumulative activity.

1.2.2.4.4 Particularities of innovation

The emergence of an innovation may be complemented by a series of effects on factors relating to the economy, as well as technology. The effects of such an emergence are difficult to predict, even in the case where this innovation is called to cater for the needs for which it was materialized.

There are, of course, other more complex cases for the application of an innovation, where the task of forecasting its effects becomes even more complex. There are cases where this innovation is available for more uses inside the same sector. There are also cases where the innovation may be applied to a different sector than the one for which it was originally planned. There is also the case where there is not designated goal for the application of the emerging innovation, and, thus, it is applied in an activity different from the one the body promoting the innovation had in mind.

Schumpeter (1939) expressed the view that inside the economic space, there are specific activities producing innovations and other activities which do not produce them but can be rendered as recipients of innovation – although their acceptance rates may not be the same. This view has gained momentum in the relevant literature (Kaminski, DeBresson and Hu, 1997; Xu, DeBresson and Hu, 1997; Vernardakis, 1993).

The selection of time is that element that can guarantee success – or failure – for an innovation. On one hand, the side of offer depends on time in such a manner so that the technologies which will accentuate the innovation to have been sufficiently developed and be accessible from the bodies who pursue to innovate. On the other hand, there is demand, for which the choice of time is also very important, since one of the conditions for the acceptance of an innovation is for this side to acknowledge the capacity such innovation offers to cater for needs. This, in turn, presupposes the maturity of appropriate social-economic conditions.

These two must be simultaneously satisfied, in order for the existence of innovation to be meaningful and to carry value and, of course, to lead to success.

Time is important for innovation as the rate by which innovations are created increases. Simultaneously, it must be observed that time also assumes a different dimension for innovation, as innovation is characterized by its own life cycle: At some point in the time continuum the innovation shall emerge, while it may even compete – or substitute – an already-dominant innovation or some that will emerge at the same time. The desideratum is for the innovation to be established and, provided it can do so, to reach the stage of maturity, where, it may, in turn, face the challenges stemming from an emerging innovation, which will either fail or, ultimately, displace it.

There are two points that merit attention here: To begin with, the duration of the life cycle of an innovation cannot, generally, be known from the start (with the possible exception of semiconductors). Moreover, in the case where a dominant innovation is being targeted by an emerging one, then the first will defend itself by realizing improvements, perhaps even great ones and even it is “deep” in its maturity stage.

Having said this, there are also exceptions, where a return to an older innovation was witnessed, thus rejecting a more recent one.

Environmental factors play a significant role with respect to the development of innovations.

The dominant religion in a region may promote or hinder the efforts toward innovation. The geographic locality and location can also influence such a development. All parameters relating to the environment can affect, to a lesser or greater extent, the intensity by which innovation is “produced”.

Cultural features are also very important. This occurs on the grounds that for an innovation to have a reason to exist and to be perceived as important, it must be perceived as useful. Its recipient must perceive that this innovation offers him or her value, as Bassala (1988) observes.

Innovations in general seldom appear in isolation. They are usually combined with the need to find an innovation that will function complementary to some original one.

Of course, the type of relationship developed among technologies, as well as the nature of the interaction between them, is difficult to probe, even for the specialists of the field. An initial difficulty lies with the fact that the interconnections appearing between different technologies are many and present differences. There are cases where one particular innovation is forced to wait for the availability of some specific inflow or necessary ingredient. The need itself for such an inflow may be sufficient to lead to the emergence of an innovation which may, in course, find unforeseen applications. Finally, there is also the case where an innovation causes an increase of productivity in an activity, and, via and by means of such an increase, the same phenomenon is observed in other activities. This fact, of course, differentiates activities based on their gravity. Technological progress in the context of specific activities may have a greater effect on the corresponding progress of other activities, while in other cases such progress in some activity may not correspondingly affect another one.

According to the modern theory for economic development, technological change constitutes one of the three main factors determining the increase in productivity – the other two being the accumulation of natural and human capital (Vernardakis et al., 1995). Infrastructures, economies of scale, the structure of the market, changes to demographic characteristics and the quality of capital and labor inflows are secondary factors. The transfer and mimicking of other technologies and know-how, the conditions and level of competition and international trade are also, according to researchers, factors which may affect the increase of productivity.

Despite the fact that it is acknowledged that such factors contribute to the increase of productivity, the manner and level, however, of their contribution is deemed difficult to evaluate, on account of complex and multifaceted interactions appearing between them but also due to their small magnitude, as has been pointed out by Englander and Gurney (1994).

Given the preceding, the reason for which technological change is emphasized as the most important factor becomes apparent. In all its manifestations, innovation contributes to an increase in productivity, regardless if it regards new products, new production methods or changes to the organization. For this reason, technological change, as a tool for acquiring a competitive advantage, is ceaselessly developing, reinforcing the level of technology included in products while at the same time rendering the need for research and development greater and an imperative.

This phenomenon contributed to the realization of the exceptional importance of knowledge, the value of the human factor as an element producing but also carrying knowledge and, more recently, of the importance that the incorporation of technology to the human factor assumes. Technology and humans constitute, with respect to the accumulation of knowledge, two sides that are as different as they are closely related to one another.

The emphasis on technological progress itself brought about two other consequences. It created, on one hand, a classification of products based on the level of technology they incorporate, while, on the other hand, it changed the rules and function of competition itself. The production of innovations is itself the criterion for competition, when one refers to High Technology and rapid technological progress products.

Should one approach technological changes from a macroeconomic perspective, these characterize not only the major business circles that relate to the international economic system but also each country individually (Vernardakis et al., 1995). Each country assumes a different speed, depending on its culture vis-à-vis technological changes and the challenges that come along with them.

Technological changes have contributed to the establishment of new sectors, the decay of other, older ones, as well as the merger of different sectors and the fragmentation of others. The need that emerges for enterprises is to shape a culture that will render the business a carrier for the accumulation of knowledge and not simply an organization pursuing the sterile accumulation of capital.

Technological developments have influenced the structure and organization of businesses. They shape the relations between businesses and other bodies, the methodologies they follow for production and the choices that complement them, and, in general, the selection and shaping of their objectives and strategies themselves.

Innovation and technological change are inherent in the wider social-economic system. This is evident also on account of the fact that as environmental conditions change, their features are perceived in different ways. Technological change, as a process, can lead the transformation of an economy. It is a destabilizing force, while at the same time being a force imposing order, both with respect to the orientation of the change as well as with respect to the dynamic adjustment process that takes place. Simultaneously, the social and institutional environment may reinforce or hinder this process of technological change through the conditions it imposes.

Elements of the research and development process and their effects on the process of innovation

According to Kay (1988) the features of the process for research and development are the following.

Research and development are not specific to a product (creating technological synergies or spectrum economies) but rather to the enterprise, creating external economies and ownership problems. If there is no sufficiently defined product, the enterprise may end up allocating R&D costs to multiple products. If, on the other hand, the company itself is not clearly defined, this may be an indication of a low comparative advantage with respect to the R&D activity.

Time delays frequently emerge in research. By itself this, of course, is nothing noteworthy, but can, however, under certain conditions lead to or assist in the creation of problems, such as loss of proprietary knowledge, encumbrance of costs and increase of uncertainty.

Uncertainty may be manifested in three different forms:

• Concerns with respect to the taking of future decisions
• As technological uncertainty
• As uncertainty regarding market success.

Finally, expensiveness is an element that differs from sector to sector.

The consequences of these characteristics tend to change as the research and development process moves toward its completion. Consequences from the three first features decrease as one moves toward the final stages of R&D, while consequences ensuing from expensiveness tend to increase.

The first important effect of the characteristics above relates to uncertainty, which directly affects financing for R&D, since it is the enterprise itself that is called to cover it and not the market.

A second effect relates to the fact that possible delays, uncertainty and the non-specific nature of research and development influence more the manner by which resources are allocated, especially when the R&D process is at its initial stages. Delays and the ensuing uncertainty may, in turn, discourage possible interested investors.

Third, cost itself, uncertainty and possible delays can operate as obstacles with respect to the interest that smaller or more specialized enterprises can show for the development of specific strategies (aggressive or not). On the other hand, the nonspecific nature of R&D – as well as possible benefits resulting from following the pioneer – may encourage more toward the direction of adopting a defensive strategy.

Fourth, one ought to be reminded of the observation that being at the forefront of innovation does guarantee success, since innovation pioneers have to deal with the four characteristics analyzed earlier.

Finally, the fifth characteristic relates to the observation that costs for R&D have significantly increased, which has shaped a fertile soil for joint ventures, especially at the early stages of research.

The process for the adoption of an innovation is fairly complex and comprises five different stages:

• Briefing on and realization of the innovation
• Shaping of opinions on the innovation
• Decision making in favor (or not) of the adoption of the innovation
• Realization of the innovation – provided it was thus decided
• Evaluation of the effects ensuing from the application of the innovation

This is a process that takes time to complete. Some or more of these stages may prove more time-consuming, while, at the same time, there are several factors at play across the entire scope of the process. There is also the case where overlays are observed between the stages, something which may give the impression that some of the stages have not taken place ( Beal and Rogers, 1960).

The characteristics of the innovation/technology that is being disseminated, which largely explain the rate for the adoption of an innovation ( Kearns, 1992), include the following:

• The comparative advantage offered by the innovation: the rate by which it appears to supersede the one it is anticipated to replace. These include the economic benefit, the low cost, the lessening of inconvenience, social status, saving in time and effort, the directness and immediacy of rewards.
• The compatibility it presents: the apparent degree of consistency between the innovation and existing values ( Walsh and Linton, 2000; Bower and Christiansen, 1995), past experiences ( Carter, 1994) and the needs of its potential recipients.
• Its complexity: This regards to how easy or hard it appears to be with respect to understanding and using it.
• The potential to test it: This is the degree by which a potential recipient is provided with the possibility to test the innovation before they decide to adopt it.
• The ability to monitor the effects from adopting it: This is the degree by which the recipient of an innovation is provided with the capacity to ascertain the effects it may bring.
• The number of businesses that constitute potential recipients of the innovation
• The manner by which the potential recipients make decisions. A decision may be regarded as optional if it relates to individuals who are decision makers, or as collective if it regards small or larger groups of people with commensurate authority. The receptiveness of an enterprise as to the implementation of changes affects the rate of dissemination of an innovation inside the company. The level of this receptiveness depends on the general features of this enterprise ( Mahler and Rogers, 1999), the structural features of this enterprise ( Meyer and Goes, 1998) and the connections between the enterprise and its environment.
• The channels via which information on innovation is exchanged between innovation producers and potential innovation recipients. The may be the mass or interpersonal media. Their importance differs depending not only on the stage of the dissemination process ( Beal and Rogers, 1960) but also on the recipients themselves ( Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).
• The nature of the environment ( Vernardakis, Stephanidis and Akoumianakis, 1995) of the social system.
• Attempts by intervening factors in order for the innovation to be adopted.

The dissemination of technology and technological innovation assists – on one hand – the exploitation of the benefits afforded by the innovative process, across the entire spectrum of the economy, while it simultaneously contributes to the reinforcement and progress of productivity.

On the other hand, the process of the dissemination of innovation is used as a carrier of useful data and information that relate to both the performance as well as the more general effect that the application of the innovative process as well as the innovation itself may carry.

The following are the principal characteristics of the process of the dissemination of innovation:

• The number of those carriers who are anticipated to constitute potential recipients of these innovations and, together with this, the philosophy that these carriers apply during their own decision-making process
• The information that relates to this particular innovation and the manner by which such information is exchanged between those carriers that develop it and those carriers that accept or adopt it

“Epidemic” models were developed and utilized in order to describe the process for the dissemination of innovation, by employing the analogy that describes the spread of a disease on the level of an epidemic.

According to this phenomenon, that analogy offers the following description on the process of the dissemination of innovation: As a technological innovation begins to spread, the number of carriers adopting it increases at a high rate until it reaches that level where the number of those carriers who have not adopted it becomes so small that the rate of dissemination for this technological innovation decreases significantly.

At the initial stages of the process, the informing available to enterprises is minimal, while in parallel the risk assumed for adopting the (new) innovation is high. During the process for the dissemination of the innovation and as more enterprises accept the innovation, they become privy to more information on this particular innovation, simultaneously decreasing the risk of adopting it. The rate by which the innovation permeates during this stage increases – with this happening limitlessly. This means that the remaining possible recipients of the innovation become less. Finally, the rate of permeation rapidly decreases, gradually leading to the completion of the process.

In general, various studies resting on the epidemic model have given the conclusions that follow. The curves describing the permeation assumed a sigmoid appearance – were shaped like an S. An accounting curve could describe the phenomenon of the spread of a technological innovation more completely.

Without becoming engaged in a detailed mathematical description and looking at the diagram, we could observe the following: The rate for the spread of a technological innovation can be rendered by using an accounting intertemporal curve, a curve that exhibits features that approximate the “S” shape. Christensen (1992) characterized the conception of such a curve as a useful framework for one to describe the phenomenon of the replacement of old technologies by newer ones – on the level of industry. Simultaneously, models that utilize this type of curve allow the analysis of the evolution in the performance of any technology (Nieto et al., 1998).

Meldrum (1995) suggests that the sigmoid technology curve depicts the relation between the performances of a technology and the amount of effort required in order to effect improvements to these performances. As Foster (1986) supported the utilization of this curve may lead to the emergence of significant issues for the case of High Tech Marketing, while it simultaneously may reinforce the marketing interfaces inside a business.

Along the S curve what can be seen is that during the initial stages of the development of a new product relatively large effort must be devoted to product small or marginal improvements to performance. As a technology becomes better understood and more widely employed for the manufacture of products, improvements to performance will be attained with less effort on development. At this point, relatively small investments will begin bringing major performance improvements, until the technology reaches its limit (as expected) – that limit is depicted as an imaginary axis to which the curve asymptotically tends. As this occurs, it will be increasingly more difficult to achieve further improvements to performance. At this stage, the technology has matured – if we refer to this phenomenon in the life of the technology terms, although the same may not hold for its market life.

The vertical axis regards the dimension of the product’s or process’s dimensions, while the horizontal axis related to the time of the magnitude of effort made. The selection of the unit depends on the researcher’s objective (O’Brien, 1962). Thus, if the researcher intends to measure the relevant efficiency or potential productivity of the work for each new product development team, then he or she will prefer to place the engineering effort on the horizontal axis (Foster, 1986), whereas if he or she pursues to assess the impact of the maturity of a technology on sales or the competitive ranking of a business, then it is preferable to select time (Becker and Speltz, 1983; Roussel, 1983; Thomas, 1984).

This model rests on a normal distribution of the adopters’ categories – a typical bell curve. Its representation on a cumulative form renders the result one observes as an “S”-form curve. From the viewpoint of strategic marketing, the growth phase of the product’s life cycle was identified via this curve (Brown, 1992).

There are two elements that are of special interest on this curve: the first regards the point in time where the level of diffusion appears to be significantly increased, while the second relates to the slope of the diffusion curve during the phase where it exhibits such increase.

A second point on the curve regards the delimitation of that area, where the curve’s slope, described earlier, begins to perceptively decrease.

Three distinguished phases can be observed during the diffusion of a technology in an industry, as such is represented by an S curve.

During the first phase, one can observe great uncertainty for the result of the development process. Simultaneously, the risk for the realization of the investment is great, the number of the enterprises utilizing the new technology is low and the diffusion process is slow. This is the phase during which the learning process begins and the rate of innovation in technological performance increases at a low rate.

Upon the passage of time, the usefulness of the new technology becomes apparent, and it is successfully consolidated. The process of its diffusion is attained and the wider and more complete understanding of the features and uses of the technology brings improvements in the technological performance indices.

As the percentage of enterprises who have not yet adopted the new technology is less than that of the enterprises that did, or those who have delayed the adoption of the new technology do not pursue to be oriented toward a newer one, the rate of diffusion is dramatically decreased, while in time the technology – as was cited earlier – approaches the limit of its performance and, in parallel, loses its ability to be productive.

There has been criticism against this model, but said criticism cannot negate its value as a tool. Researchers such as Lee and Nakicenovic (1988), Cox (1967), Swan and Rink (1982) and Tellis and Crawford (1981) have criticized the usefulness of S curves as a forecasting tool, since there are inherent weaknesses in this model.

A weak point of the epidemic model approach is the hypothesis that the businesses – potential recipients are generally homogeneous and differ only with respect to the level they are deemed as progressive. Thus, the fact that every business can develop its own, different rationale on the adoption of an innovation, as well as to assess in a different way the capacity with respect to its own profitability is not acknowledged. As Christensen (1992) points out, important differences can be observed between businesses with respect to the level of performance where a technology appears to mature. Thus, another point relates to how the selection of the adoption time for the same technology may differ for different enterprises. Another weak point regards the hypothesis that the environment of the businesses – recipients of an innovation is static, as is the number of such enterprises itself. Both hypotheses do not rest on realistic foundations. Having said this, the course of every product cannot be illustrated using an S curve.

In order to close this gap, other models have been proposed, such as that by Davies (1979). Davies takes account of the differences exhibited between enterprises and concludes by proposing different diffusion curves for different product categories. Another model was developed by Metcalfe (1981), who pursued to cover various gaps relating to the issue of innovation offer, where the epidemic model seems to fail. He concludes that the appearance of a technology creates an adjustment chasm and that the development of demand for this technology is proportionate to this chasm.

What must simultaneously be taken into account is that it is rare for a technology to be diffused without competing against other technologies. This affects both the level as well as the rate of its diffusion.

Pursuant to the rationale receding, one must take account of the fact that together with the emerging innovation, others (not necessarily competing ones) are also diffused. This can create, in course, operating interdependencies that must be taken into account for any further research or productive endeavor.

The factors affecting the rate of diffusion for an innovation are distinguished to those relating to the recipient of the innovation and those regarding the innovation itself.

Factors relating to the recipient of the innovation may include the size of the recipient company, a factor usually deemed the most significant one; the rate of development for the industrial sector within which the company operates; and the nature and quality of that businesses’ management.

On the other hand, factors regarding the innovation itself may include the expected benefit (on a financial level) and the anticipated cost for its adoption.

The process for the diffusion of innovation from sector to sector assumes a more complex nature compared to the corresponding process realized inside a sector. The course itself that an innovation follows as it is being introduced has been observed not to be random.

The sectors who are potential recipients of an emerging innovation are expected to react to this stimulus at different times. One initially expects that the sectors who will react would be those where the new proposal guarantees, more or less, the attainment of certain objectives – not necessarily cost-related. From this point onward, a path that is predictable will follow, with the adoption criteria for the emerging innovation along it being differentiated to purely economic one, as one moves toward its end point.

DeBresson (1991) depicted precisely what path an emerging innovation is expected to follow during its cross-sector diffusion.

The reason this behavior is observed is, on the initial level, the needs for there to be a direct relation between two activities, which assumes the form of an offer–demand relation, in order for an innovation to be diffused from one activity to another. It is frequent, therefore, for “neighboring” activities to facilitate the diffusion of an innovation via themselves.

This, of course, does not by itself suffice for an innovation to be adopted by a neighboring activity. A reason for this is that in the case of a push application for an innovation, this innovation may overlap with neighboring activities and create interconnections with other ones. A second reason lies with the fact and any activity develops different motives for the adoption or not of an innovation. According to DeBresson (1991), the differences that arise are related to the activities that have been cited earlier.

The rate of change for a technology describes the rate by which the generalized performance variable for this technology is improved. Such a parameter is an indication of the usefulness of such an improvement in the context defined by a wide array of applications. For a business to know the rate of change for technologies is very important when the process for the development of a new product commences but also, and more generally, in the context of business planning.

It constitutes a special need, therefore, for a business to be able to forecast the rates at which such changes to technologies can take place. Three different approaches are applied:

• Projection of fast and present trends to the future,
• analysis of the factors structuring and shaping such trends and
• investigation of possible changes to these factors.

These are implemented serially. What is initially pursued is to detect and identify the trends – provided such have been formed. After detecting the trends, it is pursued to further analyze the factors shaping and driving them. Finally, after having detected said factors, their behavior when exposed to change can be investigated.

Technologies are systems described and defined via the use of different variables and specifications. What is important is to detect the performance of the technology which simultaneously determined the usefulness of technological change for the recipient.

In order to do this, the parameter of technological performance must be designated. This regards the effectiveness of a conversion, a change in the technology, as perceived by its recipient. Its designation and selection in order to forecast the evolution of a technological system are two of the ways to correlate the value of such an evolution with the technology’s recipient.

The graphic representation of the evolution of the parameter relating to technological performance reveals an S-type curve. This curve is utilized as the basis in order to perform a projection forecast with respect to the technology.

With respect to the evolution of the technology, three generalized periods have been identified, which may be observed on the technology curve itself:

• An initial period of the new invention
• An intermediate period of technological improvement
• A final period of technological maturity

Technologies rest on natural phenomena. Every specific sigmoid technology curve assumes an (upper) natural limit with respect to the level of its evolution and which may be due to a specific natural phenomenon. The nature of this phenomenon also designates the area of the technical performance for such a technology.

One can observe the evolution of a technology with respect to time along the length of the sigmoid curve, when such a technology rests on a specific natural phenomenon. When, however, a different natural process is employed, one will observe a different evolution, which will be illustrated using a new a different sigmoid curve, to which it will “jump” from the original one.

The first observation regards what is called increasing progress and relates to improvement carried out on a technology employed by this specific physical process. The second observation regards the so-called interrupted progress, during which one observes a jump from an initial sigmoid curve to a new one, as the evolutions and improvements done to a technology are attributed to a new and different from the original physical process.

The sigmoid curve of the technology does not constitute some model that can describe the process of technological change, since it cannot explain the rate of change for the technology’s progress. It constitutes an analogy that has been historically observed and verified and which can describe the progress of a technology and can be utilized in order for one to resort in assessing the rate of change for the technology – without, however, been able to be utilized to forecast the manner by which such change can manifest.

It is, thus, an analogy describing the intertemporal evolution of the basic performance variable for the technology.

When a structural change by means of a technological substitution (emphasis on the physical phenomenon) is realized, then it is expected that the graph for the aforementioned performance parameter will shift to a new sigmoid curve for this particular technological innovation.

One may observe that such substitution cannot be described by a new, overall sigmoid curve. Simultaneously the discontinuity areas in the final diagram are not covered by some kind of sum of the original curves. Besides, each curve represents and refers to a specific phenomenon – a basis that distinguishes a technology. When this phenomenon changes, the curves also change and the physical limits to the evolution of the technology are reshaped.

This adjustment of the S curves is attained by the following procedure:

• The key technical performance parameter is detected with respect to the particular technology.
• Historical data relating to the technical performance of the specific technology are collected, beginning from the stage of its innovative application. Its evolution over time is presented in a diagram.
• The inherent, in the physical processes, factors are detected, factors that limit the evolution of the particular technology.
• The level of the physical limit for the performance parameter is assessed and the axis that the upper branch of the S curve will approximate is drawn.
• The times at which the two bending points on the curve are observed are assessed – the first in the area of change from the exponential to the linear and the second in the area of change from the linear to the area constrained by the asymptotic axis.
• A condition, of course, is that researchers have not only understood the physical process complementing the particular technology but also are imaginative enough so that they are oriented in the right way.
• Should discontinuities appear, this should be regarded as an indication to search for alternative ways to handle the physical process relating to the technology.

1.3 The “chasm”

Moore (1991) employs the term chasm to describe the distance and difficulty faced by High Technology until it attains an opportune and profitable market. It separates consumers to visionaries and pragmatists and places them in opposite banks of the chasm. Despite the fact that visionaries (or innovators or early adopters) are the first to adopt a new technology (paying, of course, the corresponding monetary price), the critical number of consumers which will signify the overcoming of the chasm comprises pragmatists. It is they who form the critical mass signifying the establishment – the beginning – of a profitable, for the company, environment. He also observes that the passage from one consuming end to the other is treacherous at best.

The chasm represents the distance – the gap – existing between two different markets for technology products. The first market is the early market, comprising early adopters and those who are distinguished by their quickness in assessing the nature and benefits of a newly developed product. The other side is the market comprising of the “rest of us”, the category, that is, of buyers who wish, on one hand, to enjoy the benefits of the new technology but, on the other hand, do not wish to experience the fatigue-inducing events entailed by its early adoption. The transition from one market to the other is anything but smooth. The factor which creates such a chaotic distance between these two markets is essentially the differentiation that inherently exists as a characteristic of the two different buyer groups. It relates to the degree of nuisance that each group is prepared to tolerate, its disposition toward assuming the entailed risks, as well as the collateral consequences, as pointed out by Siegel (1998).

To give an example, this nuisance factor can, for software users, be translated into incompatibilities with the rest of the operating system. That which creates the “chasm” is the different level of tolerance for such issues. Early adopters (or innovators) place more weight on the material and psychological benefits gained, even at the corresponding price of the nuisance entailed by their choice. On the contrary, the cost–benefit function in the overwhelming majority of consumers (or the critical mass – pragmatists) deems that the cost for adopting the new technology is great and, before adopting it, pose as a prerequisite a different array of benefits for the product, entailed and following from the new technology.

The consequences of the existence of such a chasm are many and of such an intensity that they may document the reasons for which ultimately a very large number of High Tech companies never manage to successfully cross this critical distance.

Even in the case where someone can initially succeed with the early adopter approach, managing, that is, to be a victorious first in the market, the effort required for this is huge, and the transformation required of its profile radical, in order for him or her to cross to the other side. Crossing requires the transformation of known marketing habits, by adopting new ones which would seem completely alien at first. They essentially include training the consumer adopting the product at an early stage, by using a “user-friendly” language.

The combination of the fact that many High Tech companies find it extremely difficult to leave the “beaten path”, and their failure to foresee if, when and to what extent the critical mass will adopt a product – but also at what rate this will happen – substantiate the chasm and render the estimate of the market’s size an extremely difficult and contested affair. Geoffrey A. Moore (1991) observes that if one assumes the higher ground to the problem then he or she will realize that it is but a subset of a wider issue: the manner by which a market behaves as it undergoes change. Both with respect to customers-consumers as well as for manufacturing companies, who are both subjected to the trials and tribulations not only of absorbing and consolidation but also of the use of the new ensuing ingredients. Moore recommends as the vehicle for a successful transition, and crossing of the finishing line or at least minimizing the distance of the chasm, the replacement of the philosophy on selling the product by the philosophy of establishing a relation between the company and its customers. This relation he feels may function as a brake that will thwart the collateral consequences of the chasm. The establishment of a “marketing relation” is essentially a reformulation of the transition from the sales era to marketing era, which may be condensed in the customer-centric philosophy of considering consumer needs and not servicing the needs of the sale.

In this light, it is considered to be a given that the “chasm” and its consequences for High Technology companies are, on one hand, an expression of the markets’ reaction to change, save if only and specifically for the case of High Technology products, where the environment is characterized by the intensity of the consequences, and liquidity, is depicted in its purest form. The fact that the factors composing it function as catalysts and its effects in the determination of the variables relating to the market size, but also the time the critical mass is attached to, render it as an uncertainty factor for enterprises, adding yet another distinctive characteristic to the environment in which High Tech companies must survive.

1.4 The significance of High Technology

What emerges as been rendered by the science of economics to the establishment of the framework for High Technology is its contribution to the economic know-how. In his article “The New Business Cycle”, published in Business Week, Mandel (1997) attempts to clarify another dimension of High Technology and, thus, to define it from a different perspective, that of its results on the economy. According to Mandel (1997), High Technology plays a huge role in the economy, a role so serious as to cast doubt on the use of the traditional cyclic indices employed, such as the purchase of homes, car sales or even inflation. He argues that it is the first time – and due to High Technology – that we witnessed the coexistence of high economic development (and the consequent low unemployment) and low inflation. Namely, he describes the exact opposite side of stagnation. In other words, he considers that economic growth via High Technology brought about a simultaneous decrease in price levels. His argumentation rests on the increase of productivity originating from the stabilization of economic activities and the improvement of communications, due to large investments in High Technology.

Moreover, it ascribes the increase of the efficiency of business functions to electronic commerce. Although it acknowledges that market demand for “High Tech employees” increased, together with their salaries, it feels that the inflationary pressure from this fact was offset by the fall of computer prices. In addition, it considers that the known boom–burst cycles will cease to appear since the demand for personal computer will bring about a fall in their cost due to the singular cost structure of High Technology products. High Technology products exemplify a high development production of the first unit cost, while the cost of the next units decreases and, therefore, the average cost tends to decrease with the increase of the units sold. To reinforce the argument concerning the end of the cycles, and of the effect of increased demand in cost (and, as an extension, of the other factors that depend on cost) he indicatively cites that in 1996 American consumers spent $282 billion in informatics technologies, namely, 49% more than they spent on housing. Finally, he concludes the framework for the indirect determination of High Technology by means of its results by citing that every newly employed individual at Microsoft creates six to seven new jobs in Washington.