today it is thought to be necessary
REACT TO THE CRISIS WITH A GREATER TECHNOLOGY
(A.I., Autonomous vehicle, facial recognition,
digitalization of processes, etc.)
WHEN THE CRISIS IS CAUSED BY “TECHNOLOGY”.
That is to say that the current sales crisis – the failure of the Incumbents – is due precisely to the fact that the strategies developed in the last few decades by the Market have been based on technologies (on the technologization of products and production processes).
That is, for decades people have been induced to buy (“on impulse”) products with increasingly sophisticated technologies, using the latter as a sales argument (although in reality these technologies are paid very dearly by the Customer, of very low utility for them) .
.
In other words, paradoxically, it happened that
with the promise that
TECHNOLOGIES WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE
AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE LIFE OF PEOPLE
IT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED
A DROP IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE WAS OBTAINED
.
It is therefore a matter of reversing the current trend which sees a further technologicalization as a cure for the evil of technology <see Collection of Articles on “Beyond Fake Innovation”>.
This is because there is no longer the need to evolve technologies, since you can already develop products that are much better than the current ones using “low-tech” products (for example those with the cost of a few dollars now included in the inexpensive SmartPhones) <see The new post-technological market based on the ability to apply “Human factor” to low-tech >
.
The problem is that by focusing on technologies – in recent decades – there has been a lack of attention to the “human factor” of the product (the ability to satisfy real Customer needs). So the vast majority of the products of the market today lack a real usefulness for the human being (and, as a consequence, today the mindset of designers and marketing men is formed in this way, and it is almost impossible to change). <see Why Hi-Tec and disruptive innovation are incompatible (the “Human factor”)>
.
More specifically
there is no change based on digitization:
digitization is only an enabler of change.
(there is no digital disruption, but a “human disruption”)
The change, that is, after decades of “technologicalization”, is based on the “humanization” of the Market (of products and production). <see .Business problems: the difference between original and current marketing>
the causes of disruption
To understand change, it is necessary to understand first of all that change today is not an option, since it has not been decided by someone (Public Institution, big company cartels, political movement or ideologies, etc.). But the change taking place is the spontaneous result of the evolution of society (as has already happened in other periods of history such as the Industrial Revolution). <see What disruption essentially is and Business problems: the difference between original and current marketing >
It is also necessary to understand that
this need for change is due precisely
to the strategies followed in recent decades
by the Incumbents
and by government institutions
These are strategies that – for the convenience of both parties – have been based on the same principles (the success of the market was ultimately based on a liaison between government institutions and big players on the market).
The idea was basically to “govern” the people (the Citizens, the Customers) by imposing on them top-down the choices of their lives (how to structure their social life, what are the qualities of the products that they must use, etc … ).
.
This led to the current situation:
● a deterioration in the quality of life: pollution, difficulty moving around the city, etc.
● an impoverishment of the “Society”: people are increasingly poor, and consequently the “institutions” that lived thanks to the contribution of money by people, are also increasingly poorer (Incumbents and government institutions).
< see .Decalogue of Rulesof Disruptive innovation >
.
The problem is that today Managers, Consultants, journalists and professors are unable to distinguish real innovation from the now obsolete one. <see .Why the big companies cannot innovate within them [1] >
