Incremental vs. disruptive innovation: which drives your car?
The vehicle in the photograph, which I hesitate to call a car, unsure if it really is one, is the Toyota FV2, a prototype unveiled by the Japanese company at this year’s Tokyo Motor Show. There’s certainly no doubting its conceptuality: one wouldn’t expect to see anything remotely like this on the roads for many years, if it were ever to make an appearance. Such concept cars are not designed to be sold to the public, but to showcase new technologies, stylistic trends, or other ideas.
The FV2 prompted me to think about incremental innovation versus radical or disruptive innovation: the car, by any standards, is a clear example of incremental innovation: more than 100 long years after launching the Model T Ford, the first mass-produced vehicle, the principles of automobiles remain pretty much the same. We still use steering wheels, stick shift gear change (automatic cars are one of the few examples of disruptive innovation, but dominate only a few markets), and an internal combustion that powers some kind of transmission to the wheels.
Just about all the technology involved, from the motor and the conversion of the vertical motion of the cylinders, from the tires to the suspension, are simply developments of existing principles and technology dating back to the beginnings of the industry. Obviously, all the pieces involved have improved, weight has been reduced, safety is now a priority, and complex electronic systems developed… but in essence, the car of a century ago can be seen in the car of today.
Without wishing to encroach on the territory of motor industry analysts, Toyota’s concept car is something very different, and could be considered an example of the application of disruptive innovation applied to a sector that, as said, remains tied to its founding principles. The FV2 has no steering wheel and is steered by moving the body. I always thought that the Segway needed a great deal more development than the company which put it on the market was prepared to do: the TV2 takes the concept further.
The FV2 seems closer to a machine that interprets your wishes more naturally, in the same way that horse riding can sometimes be. The machine “connects” with the user, interprets the movements of the body based on the characteristics of the road, and becomes an extension of his or her senses while keeping an eye not just on the outside world, but also, through the use of cameras and other devices, on the driver’s state of alertness or ability to drive.
Communication between the car and the driver takes place through augmented reality projected onto the windshield. If you are really somebody who likes to drive, remember that in reality, we have been doing so in pretty much the same way for the last century. But this doesn’t mean that can’t change. Also on display at the Tokyo Motor Show were models that have electric motors on the wheels, thus avoiding the need for transmission systems.
Such advances are more than incremental, and have been required by this centenarian industry for some time now. That said; many industry experts would probably deny that the motor industry has introduced change incrementally, arguing that there have been many disruptive moments over the course of their lives, and might well play down the innovative aspects of the Toyota or other concept cars, saying that they unviable to produce on a mass scale.
But we can certainly find other similar examples to the Toyota if we look at other industries. The important thing is to be able to learn to recognize them, and above all to be able to do so from the perspective of the client or user, and not from the point of view of the industry itself. The way we perceive the difference between incremental and disruptive innovation is not set by industry experts (and is often overlooked by them), but by users.
