The objective of this project is to explain the emergence of disruptive technology in the IT industry that will enable and help the organizations growth in a cost effective manner. One of the hottest topics in today’s IT corridors is the uses and benefits of virtualization technologies. IT companies all over the globe are executing virtualization for a diversity of business requirements, driven by prospects to progress server flexibility and decrease operational costs. InfoTech Solutions being dominant IT solution provider can be broadly benefited by implementing the virtualization. This paper is intended to provide the complete details of virtualization, its advantages and strategies for SMEs to migrate. Introduction
2009 IT buzz word is ‘Virtualization’. Small, medium and large business organizations seriously started to re organize their e-business strategy towards the successful disruptive technology of virtualization. Virtualization of business applications permits IT operations in organizations of all sizes to decrease costs, progress IT services and to reduce risk management. The most remarkable cost savings are the effect of diminishing hardware, utilization of space and energy, as well as the productivity gains leads to cost savings. In the Small business sector virtualization can be defined as a technology that permits application workloads to be maintained independent of host hardware. Several applications can share a sole, physical server. Workloads can be rotated from one host to another without any downtime. IT infrastructure can be managed as a pool of resources, rather than a collection of physical devices.
Disruptive Technology or disruptive Innovation is an innovation that makes a product or service better by reducing the price or changing the market dramatically in a way it does not expect. Christensen (2000) stated that ‘‘disruptive technologies are typically simpler, cheaper, and more reliable and convenient than established technologies’’ (p. 192). Before we do any research on disruptive technology it is useful and necessary to summarize the Christensen’s notion of disruptive technology. Christensen was projected as “guru” by the business (Scherreik, 2000). His work has been broadly referred by scholars or researchers working in different disciplines and topics like the development of new product, strategies like marketing and management and so on. In his book “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” (Christensen 1997) Christensen had done significant observations about the circumstances under which companies or organizations that are established lose market to an entrant that was referred as disruptive technology. This theory became extremely influential in the management decision making process (Vaishnav, 2008).
Christensen’s arguments, from the academic references (Christensen 1992; Christensen and Rosenbloom 1995; Christensen, Suárez et al. 1996) instead of looking in to his famous paperbacks (Christensen 1997; Christensen and Raynor 2003), explains that the entrant might have more advantage then the incumbent and it requires the understanding of three important forces: technological capability (Henderson and Clark 1990), organizational dynamics (Anderson and Tushman 1990), and value (Christensen and Rosenbloom 1995). He argued further that company’s competitive strategy and mainly its earlier choices of markets to serve, decides its perceptions of economic value in new technology, and improves the rewards it will expect to obtain through innovation. Christensen (1995) classifies new technology into two types: sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining technology depends on rising improvements to an already established technology, at the same time Disruptive technology is new, and replaces an established technology unexpectedly. The disruptive technologies may have lack of refinement and often may have performance problems because these are...
References: 1. Adner, Ron (2002). When Are Technologies Disruptive? A Demand- Based View of the Emergence of Competition. Strategic Management Journal 23(8):667–88.
2. Anderson, P. and M. L. Tushman (1990). "Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs - a Cyclical Model of Technological-Change." Administrative Science Quarterly 35(4): 604-633.
4. Chesbrough, Henry (1999a). Arrested Development: The Experience of European Hard-Disk-Drive Firms in Comparison with U.S. and Japanese Firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 9(3):287–329.
5. Chintan Vaishnav , (2008) Does Technology Disruption Always Mean Industry Disruption, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6. Christensen, Clayton M
7. Christensen, C. M. (1992). "Exploring the limits of technology S-curve: Architecture Technologies." Production and Operations Management 1(4).
8. Christensen, C. M. and R. S. Rosenbloom (1995). "Explaining the Attackers Advantage -Technological Paradigms, Organizational Dynamics, and the Value Network." Research Policy 24(2): 233-257.
9. Christensen, C. M., F. F. Suárez, et al. (1996). Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Cambridge, MA, International Center for Research on the Management
10. Christensen, C
11. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator 's dilemma : when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
12. Christensen, C. M. and M. E. Raynor (2003). The innovator 's solution : creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
13. Cohan, Peter S. (2000). The Dilemma of the ‘‘Innovator’s Dilemma’’: Clayton Christensen’s Management Theories Are Suddenly All the Rage, but Are They Ripe for Disruption? Industry Standard, January 10, 2000.
16. MacMillan, Ian C. and McGrath, Rita Gunther (2000). Technology Strategy in Lumpy Market Landscapes. In: Wharton on Managing Emerging Technologies. G.S. Day, P.J.H. Schoemaker, and R.E. Gunther (eds.). New York: Wiley, 150–171.
17. Scherreik, Susan (2000). When a Guru Manages Money. Business Week, July 31, 2000.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document