Futureproofing Small Businesses: Guidelines for Adapting to New Technology

Introduction 4 

Adoption of New Technologies as a Pre-requisite for Business Success 4 

Background 4 

Challenges and Barriers to the Adoption of New Technology 7 

Fulfilling Dual Role 9 

Serving Different Internal Markets 11 

Degree of Promotion 13 

The Chosen Pilot Site 14 

The Choice of Lead Person 16 

Organizational Resistance to Change 17 

Historical Market-Changing Technologies 20 

Digital Photography: Kodak vs. Fuji 20 

Mobile Software and Apps: Nokia vs. Samsung, Google, Apple, LG 23 

Digital and High-Tech Products and Services: Xerox vs. Canon Inc 26 

Video Delivery and Streaming: Blockbuster vs. Netflix, Redbox 28 

Mobile Software and 3G: Motorola vs. Nokia, Apple, Samsung, LG 31 

T echnology C urrently in D evelopment and Areas of Business to be affected 33 

5G 34 

A rtificial I ntelligence 36 

C loud C omputing 39 

D ron es 41 

B lockchai n 42 

Pros and Cons of I mplementati ng N ew T echnologies in S mall B usinesses 44 

Disadvantages 44 

Advantages 45 

Guidelines for Adoption and Implementation of New Technologies in Small Businesses 46 

Conclusion 50 

References 51 

Futureproofing Small Businesses: Guidelines for Adapting to New Technology 

1. Introduction 

Globally, almost all industries have experienced massive, rapid, and devastating changes in recent decades. At the center of these changes are technological advances ( Christensen, 2013 ). Notable examples of the affected industries include hospitality, transportation, and music. These industries have been disrupted by such app-based technologies as Airbnb, Uber, and Spotify, respectively. As technology evolves, the industries that use it are expected to change. For example, mobile apps and devices are driving major industry shifts by venturing into new markets or changing the way individuals interact with markets. The survival of businesses in this new technological dispensation is dependent on their agility ( Barabba, 2011; Christensen, 2013 ). Specifically, to survive in business today, businesses have to prepare themselves by adapting to, or adopting new and emerging technologies. This paper is aimed at developing guidelines that small businesses can use in their quest to embrace new technologies so as to remain competitive, thus ensuring their profitability and survival. 

1. Adoption of New Technologies as a Pre-requisite for Business Success 

Background 

The importance of adopting new technologies by businesses cannot be overemphasized in the era of globalization. Adoption, in this case, entails the successful acquisition of technology, successful implementation, and lastly, its use by an organization ( Christensen, 2013 ). Often, research efforts have focused on the rate as well as planning for the adoption of new technologies by businesses. Adoption of new technologies is motivated by three key factors. These include response to current market needs, attraction of the technology in question, and lastly, a combination of the two factors. As competition in the business world increases, the adoption of new technologies is requisite to the success of any business. 

Current market needs play a crucial role in the adoption of new technologies. In particular, the globalization of markets coupled with evolving customer needs is likely to exert ever-growing and constant pressure on businesses to adopt new technologies ( Christensen, 2013 ). The new technologies are essential for the renewal of different industries and thus enhanced competitiveness. Secondly, new technologies are not only readily available but are also increasingly perceived as necessary by both economic and social trends. This is because the technologies are associated with increased productivity and progress ( Ramayah et al., 2009; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). Current market needs and usefulness of new technologies may act concurrently, thus leading to increased adoption of the technologies. Business managers are thus expected to be open and responsive to new technologies for their businesses to remain competitive. 

New technologies are more often adopted by large businesses. This implies that most state-of-the-art technologies are only embraced by a fraction of businesses that need it. The lapse in adoption can be attributed to many factors. Key among these factors is planning. New technology is associated with challenges and poses numerous questions, some of which are more complex, often going beyond the simple balance between labor costs and capital. Firstly, technology results in major strategic business impacts. Secondly, the process of managing technological change is not only complex but also requires multi-faceted capabilities. The strategic impact of new technologies is often greater on medium-sized and small businesses. This makes planning a vital step in the successful adoption of new technologies. 

There is a consensus amongst scholars that an efficient planning system is key to capitalizing on the important opportunities presented by the technologies. This entails several key steps. These include conducting a needs analysis first, evaluation of the new technology, anticipation of problems associated with the technologies' introduction, and the careful planning of the implementation ( Ramayah et al., 2009; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). Several models have been developed to expound on how to plan technological change. These models are targeted at all businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses. 

Based on observations made when a new technology is adopted, there are indicators that new technologies are often left out of the corporate strategy of most businesses. This might also be true even in high technology industries. Failure to include the adoption of new technologies in a company's corporate strategy results in inadequate planning. This, in turn, may have an effect on the long-term objectives for the development and acquisition of new technologies ( Ramayah et al., 2009; Barrabba, 2011; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). Often, when business managers lack a strategic vision, they are more likely to be slow in adopting new technologies. 

Lack of planning or poor planning is also likely to affect a company's ability to derive the full potential benefits that it is likely to derive from the new technologies. In particular, the absence of a solid plan implies that the transition driven by acquisition of new technologies is managed through trial-and-error ( Ramayah et al., 2009 ) . Managers are generally thought of as being quick to adopt new technologies. However, this is far from the truth in some cases. While experts argue that managers are quick to adopt new technologies, this is not always the case in reality. 

Challenges and Barriers to the Adoption of New Technology 

The slow rate of adoption of new technologies can be attributed to three key barriers. These are human, technical, and structural ( Barabba, 2011 ). Structural barriers are attributed to factors that are inherent in the particular business's organizational structure, in which case an incompatibility exists between the new technologies and the structure in place. It is important to note that adoption of new technologies requires some level of change in the existing organizational structure. Adoption of new technology is either difficult or impossible without these changes. 

Technical barriers are associated with the technology itself. This is particularly in case the technology is hard to adapt to the business's needs. The technical barrier may be due to a design flaw or incompatibility. Human barriers are the most critical and may be as a result of such psychological factors as resistance to change. The theoretical basis of this barrier is the fact that human beings are wired to avoid uncertainty instinctively. Even if change offers people significant benefits, they are likely to resist it due to the uncertainty that comes with it ( Ramayah et al., 2009 ). Thus, in the context of the adoption of new technologies, resistance ought to be treated as an avoidable factor. 

It is impossible for a business to adopt new technologies without the implementation of some changes to the social and human elements of the organization. One of the most crucial factors in the process of adopting new technologies is the attitude of the responsible managers ( Barrabba, 2011; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). The change associated with the adoption of the technologies involves a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty at all hierarchical levels of an organization. For instance, managers are more concerned with the uncertainty related to the new technology's return on investment (ROI). Small and medium-sized enterprises are likely to experience a greater risk with regard to the technology's ROI. 

It is undeniable that businesses have to adopt new technologies for them to survive and remain competitive. However, managers of small and medium-sized businesses are often extremely careful with regard to the adoption of any new technology, especially when they have a weak technical orientation on the same ( Barrabba, 2011; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). Often, governments offer financial incentives with the aim of encouraging businesses to adopt new technologies. This strategy is expected to have a profound impact on investments in new technologies. However, this may not be fully taken advantage of due to a failure to make the necessary organizational changes. 

Shortcomings in strategic planning for the adoption of new technologies are owed to the fact that managers are sometimes naturally inclined to avoid planning. Instead, they opt for action, fire-fighting, and short-term objectives as opposed to long-term objectives and detailed planning. Another popular narrative is that while technology is attractive, it fast evolution makes planning difficult. Moreover, some managers are highly attracted and receptive to new technology. Thus, they end up adopting the technology for the sake of adopting it and not necessarily because the adopted technology responds to specific business needs. It is due to these factors that managers end up not planning for the adoption of new technologies. 

Companies spend tremendous amounts of money on research and development (R&D). However, a troubling and persistent gap exists between the value of the developed technologies and their parent companies' ability to effectively utilize the technologies. At an era of unprecedented global competition, the gap between the technical promise of new technologies and its genuine achievement is of grave concern ( Ramayah et al., 2009 ). The managers responsible for the implementation of new technologies have to surmount several key challenges for them to close the gap. These challenges are associated with the managers' unavoidable dual roles, the different internal markets that have to be served, legitimate organizational resistance to change, the degree of promotion, the pilot site chosen, and lastly, the need for one individual to take responsibility. 

Fulfilling Dual Role 

Those charged with the responsibility of managing technological change are expected to take the roles of both implementers and developers. In most cases, one organization develops a particular technology before handing it over to the users. The users are mostly more knowledgeable about the particular areas of the technology's application but less technically skilled. Thus, the user organizations are often unwilling or unable to take the necessary responsibility for the technology at the point in its evolution that the development group seek to hand it over. The individual responsible for implementation is expected to design the hand-off in a manner that is invisible whether he or she is part of the developing organization, the technology's user organization, or in any other intermediary position. Also, the implementation manager is expected to take into account the needs and perspectives of both the users and developers. 

Implementation of a new technology should be thought of as an internal marketing job as opposed to selling. This difference is vital since selling begins with a finished product while marketing starts with research on user preferences and needs ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). In this case, marketing executives are concerned with the positioning of their products in relations to all other competing products. They are also concerned with the infrastructure and distribution channels needed in supporting use of the product. Adopting a marketing perspective helps in encouraging the implementation managers to encourage user involvement in three important stages. These include the early identification followed by enhancement of the fit between user needs and the technological product in question; preparing the user organization in receiving the innovation; and lastly, shifting the innovation's ownership to its users. 

Conceptualizing implementation of new technology as internal marketing is anchored on the narrative that involvement of users in the design phase of new technology is likely to increase user satisfaction ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). However, the proper timing, extent, and type of user involvement are likely to vary from one company to another. For instance, a company may establish a user design group in which the developers of a new technology work closely with the targeted users on strategic elements of the technology during its prototyping stage. The prospective users thus get the opportunity to try out the technology in its rawest form. When this happens, an extremely tight communication loop is expected, facilitating daily feedback from the users to developers on such issues as problems and preferences. While the envisioned immediacy may be deemed unusual, it allows managers to generate very pertinent information from the potential users. This feedback aids in product design. 

Employing a marketing perspective may also help a business in preparing for reception of a new technology. Implementation efforts often fail when the importance and scope of this preparation is underestimated. For example, the managers may assume that a new technology's strategic importance and technical superiority are adequate in guaranteeing acceptance. Owing to this misconception, such managers use tremendous amounts of resources in the development or purchase of a technology and very little in its implementation. Interestingly, there is a consensus amongst scholars that the successful implementation of a new technology requires both heavy investment in the project's early stages and sustained resource investments in user organizations. Implementation efforts are likely to backfire owing to failure to develop adequate infrastructure in the targeted user organization. Part of this infrastructure includes things like training the personnel to whom the new technology would be handed off to. 

The managers implementing new technologies are expected to develop iterative and comprehensive frameworks for guiding their decisions regarding how and when to collect the required information from the different groups likely to be affected by the technology. This is similar to the way marketing managers cautiously plan the research via which they can gather crucial production information. The framework needs to be comprehensive and iterative since the process is cyclic and entails searching for crucial information, pausing to digest this information, followed by an active search for more information ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). The most important information and custodians of this information often vary at various phases of the implementation process. Nevertheless, the iterative process of gathering this information has to be coordinated by someone. Often, the implementation manager is responsible for this coordination. 

Serving Different Internal Markets 

The probability of being successful in the implementation of new technology is dependent on the organizational level at which the respective managers define a need or a problem. Consequently, the higher the organizational level, the better ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). On the other hand, the probability of successful implementation increases the closer the definition and solution of needs or problems are to the targeted end-users. Therefore, implementation managers have to take this into account when developing their internal marketing plans.

The managers implementing new technologies are expected to identify the persons and groups whose acceptance is vital for the exercise's success. They also have to decide whom to approach, with what arguments, and when. For example, for the implementation to succeed, its users and the top management have to buy into the technological innovation. Despite this, these managers have to market the idea to the two groups using different approaches. For the implementation manager to inspire a general acceptance of the innovation or technology from different constituencies, he or she has to view this new technology from the worldview of each group and thus develop approaches that are specific to the different groups accordingly.

In most cases, the top management's main concern is a new technology's likely impact on their organizations' bottom line. Therefore, such individuals are used to, and pay more attention to proposals that give emphasis to the technology's payback and return on investment (ROI). However, many of the current technologies cannot be justified using conventional financial terms despite being vital for the future of 21 st -century companies ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). For instance, challenges are likely to be encountered when seeking better means of accessing the value of robotics or artificial intelligence (AI) to a company using traditional accounting, finance, and budgeting models.

It is not sufficient for an implementing manager to sell the idea of adopting new technology to the top manager without involving user organizations in making the decision. Equally, users of a given technological innovation are expected to build 'ownership' of the particular technology ( Jones & Jain, 2002; Christensen, 2013 ). The success of this feat is dependent on the scope of the adaptation process. Instead of involving of all users in the choice of technology, their representatives should be consulted. It is also important to plan for knowledge transfer from the old operation to the new process. For example, developers of new computer software may know their tools exemplarily but fail to understand the processes and materials to which the software is applied as well as the people who use these processes and materials in their day-to-day work lives. Consequently, it is advisable for the managers to offer the time and mechanism required to allow this knowledge to flow between the developer and the experienced workers.

Another important determinant of successful adoption of new technologies is the implementing manager's choice of opinion leaders. This is based on the fact that these opinion leaders play a vital role in influencing both the extent and speed of a new technology's diffusion ( Jones & Jain, 2002; Christensen, 2013 ) . The reasons for being an opinion leader differs from one organization to another. However, opinion leaders often derive their influence from technical proficiency as opposed to formal position. It is worth noting that these opinion leaders are not necessary amongst the most skilled operators. Rather, when identifying them, implementing managers should look at their safety and technical credibility 

Degree of Promotion 

New technologies are rarely automatically accepted. While it may be overly optimistic for one to believe that new technology will itself, it is equally not advisable for one to oversell a new technology. Implementing managers also need to know that exotic and novel technologies are highly vulnerable to hype. For example, media articles about AI or robotics are likely to raise peoples' expectations far higher than the actual performance of such technologies. Potential users are, therefore likely to become disillusioned when much-touted technologies fail to live up to their expectations ( Jones & Jain, 2002; Christensen, 2013 ). The implementing manager has to take this phenomenon into consideration.

Care has to be taken in bridging the gap between reality and perception when it comes to new technologies. For example, an enthusiastic manager may widely sell a new technology to his organization, reaching out to as many individuals as possible. Since new technologies are often attractive, the manager's efforts may receive wide attention, especially at the organizational level. This form of overselling a new technology may eventually be problematic to the implementation managers. In particular, the manager may experience difficulties explaining any mismatch between expectations and what the new technology finally delivers.

The Chosen Pilot Site 

Before introducing new technology to an organization, it is important first to conduct a pilot operation. A pilot is necessary for two key reasons ( Jones & Jain, 2002; Christensen, 2013 ). Firstly, it serves as an experiment whose aim is to prove the new technology's technical feasibility. Secondly, it serves as an important demonstration model for the other organizational units. Often, the two purposes are incompatible. When the success of the pilot demonstration is vital in guaranteeing acceptability of the new technology by an organization's top management, the implementing manager may opt for a pilot site that poses limited risk to this objective. However, the chosen site may be incapable of offering real benefits to the organization or establishing an effective model for other units. On the other hand, for the pilot exercise to yield credible results, it cannot be conducted amongst the organization's most innovative individuals. This is particularly because these individuals may be deemed far from typical.

Piloting a new technology at the poorly performing unit may be desirable since this is where the innovation is needed the most implying that it would result in the most desired results. However, this choice is no better either. This is because in case the project fails, the implementation manager might not know if the failure was caused by problems inherent in the site or by the technology's inherent properties. Likewise, the project's success at such a site may be critiqued as being rather obvious. 

In order for an implementing manager to succeed in the pilot phase, he or she has to be clear about the aim of the pilot test. The manager has to decide whether the purpose of the pilot test is a demonstration or experimental and then subsequently chose the pilot site that matches this need best. When the manager realizes that the aim of the pilot is a demonstration, he or she ought to establish the individuals that this demonstration targets. Ultimately, the organizational and physical position of the pilot site significantly influences composition of the next wave of the technology's users. 

An inverse relationship exists between the proximity to the facility and their subsequent use. It is impossible to site new technology for everyone's convenience. Despite this, an innovation's placement often determines who will use the new technology first as well as the most. Locating the innovation farthest from the old or more hesitant potential users increases their excuse for not embracing it. This implies that the managers who ignore physical layout in the process of implementation are likely to select individuals with limited or no influence in their organization as the first users by default. 

The implementation of new technologies is significantly smoothened by the involvement of opinion leaders at the planning phase. This is because if the new technology's first users are credible role models, their involvement in the demonstration phase has a profound impact on a wide audience ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). In some instances, opinion leaders may resist new technology strongly, in which case getting even a single opinion leader has an unprecedented impact on the adoption of the new technology. When this happens, a tactfully presented and well-paced training session may be necessary. Nevertheless, in most cases, the implementation manager is forced to create new role models. This is achieved by siting the new technology where the workers that are most open to change are able to demystify this technology for their colleagues by consuming it themselves. 

There is a consensus that the individuals with long-term investments in particular skills and routines may hesitate to give up the security that comes with these habits ( Christensen, 2013 ). These individuals are likely to be individuals that have worked in a organization for a long time. Thus, it is prudent to site a new technology close to workers who are relatively open to change. However, these individuals should not be too different from the group whose resistance renders them poor role models. 

The Choice of Lead Person 

The successful adoption of new technology is dependent on the composition of the implementation team ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). Such teams may be comprised of a sponsor, a champion, a project manager, and an integrator. The sponsor is often a high-level individual who ensures that the implementation process receives both manpower and financial resources. This individual also has to be conversant with the particular organization's politics. A champion, on the other hand, may be a diplomat, salesperson, or the new technology's problem solver. The project manager oversees all administrative details while an integrator manages conflicting priorities and subsequently consolidates the team using communication skills.

In the implementation team, a particular function can be fulfilled by more than one individual while one person can be assigned more than one role. Despite assigning roles to different individuals, a project is likely to fail if sufficient authority is not vested on one individual whose role is to ensure that things move. For instance, this role can be given to the champion or the sponsor. The chosen individual must bear sufficient organizational power so as to sufficiently mobilize the required resources. This power must be felt by both users of the new technology and its developers. 

Mobilizing people and supplies may be achieved in numerous ways. For example, encouraging ownership of new technology within a use organization allows skillful advocates to create the much-needed power base, thus pulling along the new technology. Nevertheless, the presence of enthusiasm alone is not sufficient. New technology undoubtedly needs allocation of resources to support the implementation process and other supportive infrastructure ( Jones & Jain, 2002 ). For instance, a champion who has no authority among receivers of the new technology is forced to depend on individual persuasion as an avenue for garnering the needed resources. Though effective, this process is time-consuming. Thus, firstly, the chosen lead person should be high enough in the hierarchy and capable of controlling the required resources. Secondly, he or she should have sufficient endorsement for the implementation process from superiors. Thirdly, the individual has to believe fully in the new technology. Fourthly, the individual should be quick and capable of seeking resources as well as support from the organization's top management, thus ensuring that the implementation proceeds quickly and smoothly. Overall, the successful adoption of new technology requires that one person is given the responsibility to lead. 

Organizational Resistance to Change 

Resistance to change in an organization may be grouped into two categories, namely tacit and overt resistance ( Jones & Jain, 2002; Barabba, 2011; Christensen, 2013). On the one hand, overt resistance to new technology may be a result of the overlooked issues or mistakes inherent in the implementation plan. On the other hand, tacit resistance rarely disappears. Instead, it ferments, growing into sabotage, or may surface afterward once resources are exhausted. Since proponents of change often have a clear understanding of a new technology's usefulness, resistance is likely to catch them by surprise. It is important for managers to deal with the resistance head-on as opposed to ignoring it. 

Implementing managers ought to anticipate and prepare for opposition. While a new technology requires a champion to push for its adoption, it is worth noting that any technology that inspires strong advocacy is also likely to attract opposition. To counter opposition, champions of new technologies have to nurture support and marshal forces so as ensure successful adoption of the technology in the presence of resistance. Opposition to new technology is commonly attributed to the absence of a personal benefit and fear of loss of power or skills. 

Fear of Loss 

New technologies often demand the deskilling of an organization's workforce. The employees likely to be displaced by new technology have to be retrained. With adoption of new technology, employees may be forced to replace their hard-earned manual skills with rather mundane routines that are computer and/or internet-enabled. This phenomenon may fuel conflicts between supervisors and their subordinates. Since the former are not required to interact with the new technology or to have a deep understanding of it, they may be left out of the deskilling process. 

Providing subordinates with the knowledge that their supervisors lack is likely to undermine the latter's credibility. The supervisors are likely to be deeply conversant with the old technology if they have worked their way up the organization's ranks. In this regard, the supervisors are likely to have been problem solvers in the past, thus using this to affirm their authority. Training subordinates while leaving their supervisors may fuel hostility between the two. Another notable reason for resistance is increased fear that the new technology might be enfeebling politically, implying that the supervisors are likely to lose control once they adopt it ( Barabba, 2011 ). Implementing managers should identify areas where a loss of power is imminent in a bid to anticipate and prepare to avert the problems that may arise from the loss. 

Absence of Personal Benefit 

New technology has to be advantageous over that which it replaces to potential users to be incentivized to use it ( Christensen, 2013). The increased visibility of a new technology's costs the more the benefits of making its potential rewards and benefits apparent. Examples of costs include convenience, financial, or the need for users to learn new skills. On the other hand, possible benefits include greater recognition, enhanced value of work, increased influence over work, preservation of jobs, or a solution to a long-term problem. 

Managers, by virtue of their position, are capable of knowing the benefits buried in new technology. However, these benefits may be completely invisible to the users on which success of the adoption depends. This implies that new technology is likely to benefit an organization as a whole while not benefiting individuals in it in any way that they are aware of. Due to this lapse, it is crucial that all benefits accruing from new technology are made visible via encouragement from the supervisors. They can also be made visible through timely and explicit feedback on how the new technology is influencing the output of workers. Generally, the visibility of benefits is enhanced when users are offered faster and frequent positive feedback. Implementation managers should thus ensure that the advantages of the new technology over the old are made apparent to the users every time they make use of the technology. 

1. Historical Market-Changing Technologies 

The survival of companies in the business world is dependent on their ability to adapt. This is particularly true in the context of new technologies. Currently, there is an unprecedented convergence of business and technology. Adoption of new technology not only enhances a company's competitiveness but may also its ability to remain profitable. Businesses are thus called up to seek and embrace adaptable and nimble processes continuously. Failure to do this is often disastrous for any company. Interestingly, a significant percentage of businesses lag behind in regard to the adoption of new technologies ( Barabba, 2011; Christensen, 2013 ). Specifically, despite the numerous benefits associated with embracing new technologies, some entities are not quick to take up these innovations. This may be attributed to different reasons, including reluctance to change, intimidation, and cost of adoption, among others. History is replete with examples of companies that failed to adopt new technologies leading to their downfall. This is highlighted below.

Digital Photography: Kodak vs. Fuji 

Kodak was founded in 1880 by George Eastman and developed its first snapshot camera in 1888. It was clear to the company that consumables generated the most revenue. As a result, Kodak figured that cameras did not necessarily need to be expensive since their owners spent heavily on film. The company thus put huge investments in film. It was also amongst the few entities that had the processes and knowledge needed to succeed following the introduction of color photography. In 1962 Kodak made sales worth $1 billion, and by 1976, it had captured much of the United States (US) camera and film markets, accounting for 85% and 90%, respectively ( Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009). The company's photofinishing process soon came to be recognized as the industry's standard for quality. 

Most of Kodak's revenue was attributed to its enormous film-making plant. All these achievements exemplify Kodak's success. In 1981 the company's sales reached $10 billion but owing to increased competition, especially from Fuji, future sales increases were significantly hindered (Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009; Gavetti et al., 2004). Despite this past success, in 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy. This has been attributed to the company's failure to embrace digital photography (Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009; Barabba, 2011; Christensen, 2013). 

Kodak's failure to take advantage of digital photography is interesting given that the company was credited for developing and patenting numerous elements of digital photography. In particular, the same technology that Kodak pioneered has had an immense negative impact on the company ( Gavetti et al., 2004; Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009; Mui, 2012). The digital camera, by combining information and communications technologies (ICT), changed many customer processes that are associated with photography. In particular, the camera was able to display and store photographs just like a computer, and could use the internet to transmit the images (Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009). 

Using digital cameras, consumers could now take as many photographs as they wanted at almost no cost. They could also easily delete unwanted photographs. As opposed to developing photos before using the mail to send them to another person, a digital camera allowed customers to upload the images to a computer then send them as an e-mail attachment to as many recipients as deemed necessary (Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009). Moreover, if one needed a hard copy of the photograph, he or she could print them using a color printer on a computer, internet photo service, or go to a photo developing kiosk. 

Kodak's failure to adopt digital photography resulted in its decline for decades as the technology destroyed its business model which was film-based. In 1975, Steven Sasson, an engineer at Kodak invented what would be called the first digital camera ( Gavetti et al., 2004; Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009; Mui, 2012). However, the company's management dismissed it because the photography produced was filmless. Thus, Kodak's downfall can be attributed to its management's failure to acknowledge that digital photography was disruptive technology despite its researchers' efforts to push the technology's boundaries. 

In the 1980s, the first electronic camera came into the market courtesy of Sony. This move resulted in the initial concerns about the future prospects of digital photography. As a result, Kodak conducted an extensive market research in this regard. Results showed that digital photography was capable of replacing Kodak's film-based business model. However, this would take time to be realized and that Kodak had about ten years to get ready for the projected disruption (Barabba, 2011; Mui, 2012). The company failed to prepare. 

The projections made in the research study were based on several factors. These included the cost of purchasing digital photography equipment, the quality of resultant prints and images, and lastly interoperability of such components as printers, displays, and cameras (Barabba, 2011; Mui, 2012). All pointers showed that the adoption of digital photography was likely to be non-threatening and minimal in the short-term. This finding proved to be true. However, Kodak did not do much in preparation for the looming disruption during its decade-long window of opportunity. 

As opposed to preparing for the replacement of film by digital photography, Kodak instead used digital in improving the quality of film ( Barabba, 2011; Mui, 2012). This approach continued even after development of the first mega-pixel camera by the company's research laboratories in 1986. This development was informed by the previous research study's projection that it would be a tipping point in the context of the feasibility of standaloneone digital photography. In 1996, Kodak introduced Advantix Preview film and camera system. However, despite being a digital camera, it used film and still emphasized print. To justify this, it was argued that Kodak was in the paper, chemical, and film business (Barabba, 2011; Mui, 2012). The Advantix failed because it did not make sense for one to buy a digital camera yet still end up paying for prints and film. Signalling Kodak's downfall, the sale of digital cameras was increasing by 75% annually compared to film camera's 3% by 1997 (Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009). The market was also full of new digital-photography-based firms mostly from Japan. The value and number of digital camera sold surpassed that of film cameras by 2000. 

Kodak's eventual failure can be attributed to its failure to transition from film business to digital photography. Despite presiding over the development of key technological breakthroughs, the company's management failed to make the most appropriate strategic decisions. This is also despite possessing precise market assessments about the opportunities and risks associated with digital photography. Barabba (2011) argues that this was due to lack of openness to change, failure to think and act holistically, inability to adapt business design to changes, and failure to make decisions interactively utilizing different methods. 

Mobile Software and Apps: Nokia vs. Samsung, Google, Apple, LG 

Headquartered in Finland, Nokia was turned into a full telecom-oriented company in 1990s and soon became a leader of the mobile phone revolution. The company grew rapidly before being listed amongst the most valuable and recognizable brands globally. For example, Nokia commanded over 40% of the mobile phones global market share at its height (Lamberg, 2019). Similar to its rise, Nokia's decline was swift and culminated in the 2013 acquisition of its mobile phone division by Microsoft for $7.17b (Ciesielska, 2018; Lamberg, 2019). Besides rapid market changes, increased complexity, and rapid technological advancements, Nokia's downfall can be associated with the rise of LG, Samsung, Google, and Apple. However, following years of massive success and growing profits, Nokia failed in transitioning to smart phones and a business model that was customer-focussed. 

Nokia was the first to create a cellular network in the world in 1979. It then launched its first car mobile called Mobira Senator and became a world leader in mobile phones in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This success was attributed to an energetic, united, and youthful leadership (Lamberg, 2019). This leadership's courageous and visionary management was able to leverage the company's innovative technologies the same time that deregulation and digitization of telecom networks was spreading quickly across Europe. In the mid-1990s, Nokia's supply chain almost collapsed owing to its fast growth. To prevent this, disciplined processes and systems were developed making the company more efficient and allowing it to scale up its sales and production rapidly in comparison to its competitors. 

Nokia had a workforce of about 27,353 between 1996 and 2000 while its revenue had gone up by 503% over the same period. This growth put the company's managers at its key development centers under performance pressure in the short-term. Consequently, these managers could not dedicate sufficient resources and time to innovation (Lamberg, 2019). Thus, while Nokia's core business focussed on making incremental improvements, the company's comparatively small data group took over its innovation efforts. The group launched the Communicator, which became the world's first smartphone in 1996. In 2001, the group developed he company's first camera phone as well as a second-generation smart phone, namely the Nokia 7650. 

The downfall of Nokia is closely associated with its overreliance on Symbian, a largely inefficient operating system. Symbian had been responsible for Nokia's early success and advantage. However, with time it had become device-centric in a world that was becoming more application and platform-centric (Doz & Kosonen, 2008; Burgelman, 2018; Ciesielska, 2018; Lamberg, 2019). Further, Symbian was responsible for causing massive delays in the launch of new phones because each phone model required development and testing of new sets of code. Nokia was using as many as 57 incompatible and different versions of Symbian by 2009. 

Some of Nokia's best financial results were posted in the late 2000s. However, the company's management was having difficulties responding to the changing business environment. The most important competitive feature in the telecommunications industry was no longer hardware but rather software (Lamberg, 2019). Likewise, the advantages of application ecosystems were becoming more apparent. Nokia was unable to leverage these opportunities due to lack of skills and openness to new ways of doing things. 

The downside of Symbian became obvious by 2010 confirming that Nokia had indeed missed the transition towards mobile apps as pioneered by Apple. The company had limited strategic options none of which was attractive. As a result, it was incapable of responding to the growing market changes and competitive forces ( Ciesielska, 2018; Lamberg, 2019). Nokia disengaged from mobile phones choosing instead to refocus on development of network infrastructure equipment. In contrast, such competitors as Samsung, Google, and Apple embraced the new paradigm and thrived. 

Nokia's competitors not only focussed on the internet but also understood that the future of communication was data as opposed to voice. Likewise, the company paid little attention to the emerging concepts of software and development of an ecosystem around mobile apps. Instead, it chose to remain focused on hardware (Doz & Kosonen, 2008; Burgelman, 2018; Ciesielska, 2018; Lamberg, 2019). Further, Nokia delayed in transitioning its smartphone platform from Symbian to newer, more efficient on. Its competition with Android through open sourcing Symbian was deemed too late and could not succeed. Overall, Nokia failed to embrace new innovations choosing instead to remain complacent and attached to hardware. By doing so the company failed to prepare for the future. 

Digital and High-Tech Products and Services: Xerox vs. Canon Inc 

Since its establishment in the US in 1906, Xerox was, for the most part, synonymous with the traditional copier. This copier was typically a black and white analog machine which duplicated black and white images originally found on cut-sheet paper onto cut-sheet paper. Since the initial development of xerographic technology through emergence of the digital age, this xerographic process remained the same (Howard, 1992). Thus, the company had bet its entire future on xerography, a technology derived from the development of Chester Carlson's 1938 invention into viable commercial products. Xerox's Model 914 was its first commercially successful product and was introduced into the market in 1959. This model became the first automatic paper copier in the world and was later listed amongst the most successful commercial products in history. Success of this product resulted in the company's unprecedented growth and allowed it to launch other successful products. Despite competition from Japanese companies selling cheaper and smaller versions of Xerox's products, the company managed to stay ahead of the competition by developing and marketing a series of products, mostly copiers. The company's efforts were rewarded when it won the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1989.

In the early and mid-1990s Xerox's top management realized that the company's future was anchored on their ability to make two vital transitions (Howard, 1992). Firstly, the executives recognized that Xerox had to expand its scope beyond being a copier company and subsequently change the world's perception of it. Secondly, the company would need to change its product line from one based mainly on analogue technology to one anchored on digital technology. The larger proportion of the latter would be color-based. In 1990, the company began emphasizing the shift to digital both internally and publicly. It is for this reason that Xerox began referring to itself as the 'document company' (Howard, 1992). In line with this, the company introduced a new logo that featured a capital, red, and large 'X.' This X was made of square blocks aimed at representing digital pixels, hence the company's intentions of going digital. 

Xerox recognized that there was enormous potential in office productivity. This is particularly because white-collar workers represented more than 60% of all workforce in the developed world. Documents were central to these people's work life since they spent up to 50% of their time working on documents. Moreover, up to 90% of office information was held in the fedorm of documents in readiness for use by people. Based on the above statistics, Xerox decided to focus on documents either in electronic or paper form to leverage office productivity ( Howard, 1992). By 1995, Xerox was worth $15.1 billion with 63% and 22% of its revenue coming from black and white copiers and digital products respectively. Despite this success, a series of decisions prevented the company from taking advantage of the digital revolution fully. 

By 1997, Xerox's financial performance was impressive. The company was making good progress in its transition from a maker of black and white standaloneone, light lens copiers into being a leader in the provision of a wide range of networked, digital, and color solutions, products, and services (Howard, 1992). Nevertheless, Xerox continued to face stiff competition from such entities as Canon Inc., which introduced cheaper digital copiers thus undercutting Xerox. With time, Xerox was not able to maintain profitability in the now net-centric digital world. The company brought in a change agent by appointing Richard Thoman as CEO in late 1997. However, it refused to allow Thoman to make the necessary changes. Thoman was expected to transition Xerox from a copier seller into a consultant on the effective use of digital documents. He was fired in 1999 before he could make the changes necessary to make the transition. Nevertheless, while Thoman had the vision, he lacked the people skills needed to transition Xerox. Ultimately, the appeal for Xerox's products fell leading to its downfall. 

Video Delivery and Streaming: Blockbuster vs. Netflix, Redbox 

Blockbuster Inc. was founded by David Cook and opened its first store in 1985. The company, by revolutionizing how movies are rented, soon became a corporate giant. Being one of the most recognizable companies in America, Blockbuster was bought by Viacom in 1994 for billions of dollars. However, owing to changes in the market dynamics, the company continued posting poorer results in the next decade (Almeida, 2011). During the same period, new companies emerged developing innovative ways of exploiting the video rental market. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2010 having had accumulated a $1 billion debt with dwindling revenues. While Blockbuster led the video-rental business in the US in the 1990s and early 2000s, its fortunes turned following the advent of more innovative and dynamic companies such as HBO Go and Netflix. 

When Cook opened his first video-rental store in Dallas, Blockbuster was superior in comparison to other rental stores. In particular, the video rental industry then was not only extremely fragmented but was also comprised of thousands of small stores that were privately owned. Blockbuster's stores differed from these competitors in that each store featured in excess of 8000 titles that could be rented ( Almeida, 2011). Its competitors, on the other hand, only had roughly half of this number. Likewise, it featured a computerized, modern check-out process. Thus, Blockbuster allowed people to rent and watch movies that had already left the theatres without having to buy the tapes. Aided by various investors, Blockbuster expanded to about 4,000 stores by the time it was bought by Viacom Inc. in 1994. 

In 1997, the digital video disc (DVD) was introduced into the market. The DVD technology was the digital replacement of the previously used VHS tapes and was superior in numerous ways. For instance, it featured better images and sound, facilitated more interactive content and had more storage capacity. Blockbuster successfully adopted the new DVD technology by shifting from its rental-only strategy to a rental cum sell-through one . Specifically, the company introduced what it termed the "Rent it! Like it! Buy it!" (Almeida, 2011). This program ensured that Blockbuster members could purchase movies that had been previously watched at $10. It also offered a free rental to the clients who bought a video game or DVD. 

Emergence of the DVD technology coincided with increased adoption of the internet in the US. This development would significantly change the home entertainment industry. For instance, the internet allowed individuals to order DVDs online from the convenience of their homes using a PC and wait for its delivery ( Almeida, 2011). Blockbuster directed significant amounts of resources in developing its internet presence. However, the companies online retail venture did not take off due to failed partnerships with such online-based entities as Food.com, Kozmo.com, and Streamline.com. The collapse was partly owed to bursting of the internet bubble in 2000. 

The factor that contributed the most to Blockbuster's downfall was emergence of internet-based movie subscription services. At the center of this new technology was Reed Hasting's Netflix ( Almeida, 2011; Jordan, 2011; Chopra & Veeraiyan, 2017). Blockbuster's management initially dismissed Netflix's threat. Later, they considered purchasing Netflix for $50 million but abandoned the idea. Thee executives also ignored Redbox, yet another vital competitor (Chopra & Veeraiyan, 2017). To counter these internet-based movie subscription services, Blockbuster launched Blockbuster Online which would run a platform similar to Netflix in terms of subscription model and site design. However, the platform would differ due to its integration of both a physical and online business.

Hastings, in 2000, met John Antioco, Blockbuster's CEO to discuss a possible partnership between the two companies. Hastings proposed to Antioco that Netflix was willing to run Blockbuster's online business, if the latter agreed to promote Netflix in its physical stores. Interestingly, Antioco and his team declined the partnership (Satell, 2014; Veeraiyan, 2017). Blockbuster's refusal to partner with Netflix was informed by various reasons. Specifically, the company was at the top of the video rental business and had thousands of retail stores as well as millions of clients. These features were supported by a massive marketing budget and efficient operations. Overall, Blockbuster dominated its competitors and thus, did not need Netflix. In 2002, Netflix went through a largely successful IPO and tripled its subscribers from 2002 to 2004. At the end of 2004, Netflix was at the top of the DVD rental market commanding a 78% market share. At this point, the company had few direct competitors since Blockbuster could not keep up. 

Satell (2014) argues that Blockbuster's top management was unaware of one of the key weaknesses in its business model. Specifically, the company generated a significant proportion of its revenue from charging its clients late fees. This implied that its profitability was dependent on its ability to penalize patrons. In contrast, by leveraging the internet, Netflix did not need retail locations and thus was able to lower its operational costs. Consequently, the company successfully offered its customers greater variety compared to Blockbuster. As opposed to charging clients to rent movies, Netflix allowed customers to subscribe instead. This model got rid of the late fees that Blockbuster depended on. This way, Netflix proved to be more innovative. While it was a niche, small service, Netflix was disruptive enough to significantly reduce Blockbuster's profitability resulting in its eventual collapse.

Mobile Software and 3G: Motorola vs. Nokia, Apple, Samsung, LG 

The origins of Motorola can be traced back to Galvin Manufacturing Company that was established in 1928. The company specialized in radio technology and is credited for bringing into the market the first in-car radio, walkie-talkie, pager, and in-car radio. Motorola's radio technology even communication during Neil Armstrong's trip to the moon. The company also specialized in microprocessors, semiconductors, barcode scanners, and televisions. Besides these early successes, Motorola is recognized for developing the first operational cellular mobile phone in 1973. This was made possible by concepts developed in 1947 by engineers working at Bell Labs. However, an experimental cellular network was only created in 1951. Motorola's only competitor in the design and manufacture of mobile phones was Nokia. However, the former was more innovative ( Borhanuddin & Iqbal, 2016) . Motorola developed the first flip phone, clamshell-style phone as well as the lightest and smallest phone in the world.

Motorola introduced the first GSM cellular handset in the world in 1991 followed by the first GSM mobile phone in 1993. In 1999, the company went on to manufacture the world's first tri-band mobile phone. By combining efforts with Cellnet in 2000, Motorola introduced the first GPRS mobile data service. Owing to its consistency in innovating, the Motorola brand was often closely associated with mobile phones. The company was also undeniably responsible for popularizing them. Motorola was the undisputed leader in mobile phone manufacture until 1998 when it was replaced by Nokia ( Steinbock, 2005 ; Borhanuddin & Iqbal, 2016) . Despite its comeback through launch of Motorola Razr in 2004, the company could not recover its spot. Ultimately, Motorola's share of the world mobile market dropped from 21% to 6% signaling its demise.

Failure to embrace new technology and keep innovating is responsible for Motorola's downfall. In particular, Motorola was essentially a hardware technology company while from the mid-2000s the mobile phone business was driven by software. Motorola was slow in adopting software, making it a weak competitor ( Steinbock, 2005 ). Compared to its rivals, Motorola's interface was deemed clunky while their smartphones oscillated between Windows and Linux-based operating systems. For instance, with its QWERTY keyboard, the Motorola Q could not compete effectively with its rivals. The release of Apple's iPhone in 2007 disrupted the market further as it turned the mobile into a portable pocket computer. The resultant shift in industry dynamics impacted all phone companies negatively with Motorola being the most affected. Apart from losing $4.3 billion between 2007 and 2009, the company's market share dropped further to 2% in 2011.

Apple's success can be attributed to it agility in shifting from hardware to software. It thus put a lot of effort in designing the iPhone. Conversely, Motorola's attention was split between different products and thus it did not have time and the willpower to make the shift. Motorola released Droid in 2009, its smartphone to compete with the iPhone ( McKeen, 2010) . While the smartphone sold well initially, it could not compete with Apple and the likes of LG and Samsung whose technology was more appealing to customers. Motorola also failed to adopt 3G technology. This is because most of its customers were US wireless carriers who deemed 3G unnecessary. By listening to the carriers instead of the carriers' customers, Motorola missed the opportunity to shift to 3G. The company was split into Motorola Solutions and Motorola Mobility, with the latter focussing on consumer devices. Motorola Mobility was eventually bought by Google in May 2012 for $12.5 billion. 

1. T echnology C urrently in D evelopment and Areas of Business to be affected 

Currently, the rate of technological growth is unprecedented. This growth is a culmination of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). The 4IR can be conceptualized as the fusion of the physical, biological, and digital worlds, made possible by the utilization of various cutting-edge technologies (Xu et al., 2018). The 4IR is expected to bring fundamental changes to the way people work, live, and associate with each other. This revolution represents a new chapter in human development that will be driven by cutting edge technological advances similar to those of the 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd revolutions. The depth, breadth, and speed of the technologies associated with the 4IR are bound to force nations to rethink their development. They will also fundamentally change how organizations generate value. 

The 4IR goes beyond technology-driven change. It will offer everyone including policy makers, leaders, individuals, nations, and organizations an opportunity to take advantage of converging technologies to create a human-centred and inclusive future ( Xu et al., 2018 ). Thus, the real opportunity in the coming decade is anchored on looking beyond technology into finding ways via which the largest number of people can be given the opportunity to impact their families and communities positively. Business entities around the world will play a crucial in leveraging emerging technologies to make this a reality. The next section highlights examples of technologies anchored on the 4IR that are currently in development and whose impact on the market cannot be overstated. The areas of business likely to be significantly impacted by these technologies will also be highlighted.

5G 

When the first cellular network came into existence in the 1970s, tremendous improvements have been made on wireless technology. Each of the subsequent technological leaps has been named a 'generation,' also referred to as a G. Each of these subsequent generations has been characterized by increased bandwidth and frequency, thus increasing the amount of information that can be transmitted and the speed at which this transmission takes place ( Marr, 2019; Duggal, 2020; Kotok, 2020 ). These developments have led to huge technological advances over time. For example, 3G was responsible for bringing into existence the first smartphones. This implies that without 3G, the development of smartphones would have been a mirage. On the other hand, 4G made watching movies possible. Thus, overall, 3G and 4G technologies made it possible for users to browse the internet, take advantage of data-driven services, while the increased bandwidth made streaming on such platforms as YouTube and Spotify possible ( Marr, 2019; Kotok, 2020 ). The 5G technology will build upon these previous technologies.

The 5G technology refers to the 5 th cellular network generation and is envisaged to unlock increasingly more technological potential in the future. The tasks that may have been impossible to execute using 3G and 4G will be made possible by 5G. As a spin-off, devices dependent on this network are expected to evolve radically. However, understanding the technology's benefits will be vital in appreciating 5G's application and effects on business entities. Some of the benefits that 5G will have over its predecessors include faster speeds, ultra-low latency, greater capacity, and stronger connection ( Duggal, 2020 ). Using these features, 5G will mainstream numerous modern technologies due to ease of their implementation. Some of these technologies include video-conferencinging, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and internet of things (IoT) ( Marr, 2019; Kotok, 2020 ).

Due to 5G, video-conferencinging will become a key form of communication for individuals and businesses. As virtual conversations become more real, traveling will be reduced, implying that business will reduce the number of physical meetings, and thus the costs associated with them ( Marr, 2019; Kotok, 2020 ). Virtual reality, on the other hand, will disrupt the gaming industry. For example, creation of multiplayer VR mobile games will be made possible by the reduced latency. Businesses will also be in a position to execute virtual tours. This feature is likely to affect such businesses as realtors and hotels. In this way, VR will make delivering to customers easy. The use of AR is likely to surpass that of VR. Currently, such entities as Ikea are using AR in virtually visualizing the different possible furniture types in their clients' living rooms to see how the furniture fit ( Duggal, 2020 ). This technology will be used by other businesses such as clothes stores and art galleries. For example, using AR, customers can try clothes remotely. The technology will also undoubtedly enhance experiences in the entertainment industry due to its use in concerts, theatres, and escape rooms and re-enactment rooms.

Using IoT, it will be easy to control drones remotely. This will be helpful in emergency response situations in that making real-time responses to different threats will be possible. The IoT will also aid in strengthening home and office security since business owners will be able to remotely using cameras mounted at home or in the office ( Duggal, 2020 ). Other possible applications include locking doors or turning lights on and off remotely. As the world gears towards creation of smart cities, IoT will play a crucial role. For instance, it will possible to control buses and trains remotely. Other industries likely to be affected by 5G include automobiles, healthcare, and manufacturing. As the world shifts towards autonomous vehicles, 5G will facilitate communications between vehicles on the roads. The use of devices, which are the future of healthcare, will only become feasible if they can relay information remotely. This will be made possible by 5G. In manufacturing, 5G will enable such aspects as robotics, 3D printing, AR, and cloud computing. This is because their success is dependent on efficient communication between devices. Overall, 5G is a key technology in actualizing the benefits of the 4IR.

A rtificial I ntelligence 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is aimed at making computers or computer programs smarter enough to copy or imitate the behavior of human minds (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019; Duggal, 2020). Notable exemplifications of AI in use today include Siri and Alexa. These technologies make the lives of users easier. This is because at the core of AI is the ability to learn, reason, solve problems, and perceive. Artificial Intelligence will affect not only how people live but also how they play and work. The technology is currently known for its use in speech and image recognition, personal assistants in smartphones, navigation apps, and ride-sharing apps, among other applications. However, AI will have numerous other impacts on businesses in the future.

Artificial inteligence will play a vital role in enabling machine learning. Machine learning refers to the science of applying and designing various algorithms that are capable of learning past occurrences (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019). This will be vital to businesses in the future in numerous ways. For example, complex algorithms are capable of analyzing an individual's past credit card fraud, helping businesses in the banking, finance, and credit sector in their operations. Likewise, AI will play a crucial role in determining how software work, consequently ensuring that it works proactively using previous data and results. In particular, AI will enable interpretation and analysis of immense amounts of data, becoming more efficient in the process than ever before. Using this feature, businesses will be better placed at making decisions while ensuring accuracy in the process. For example, businesses will be able to develop more profitable and personalized campaigns. 

For businesses that are highly dependent on laptops, internet, smart phones and other smart devices will particularly benefit from AI. This is because on learning the system, patterns, decode deviations, and algorithms, AI will easily reveal any malfunctions or process-attacks. Since such businesses are prone to theft and cyber-attacks, the technology will help them avoid the losses associated with breaches (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019; Duggal, 2020). Customer service is one of the most vital yet time-consuming components of any business. Resolution of one customer complaint is likely to take hours. Using AI, businesses will be able to deploy chatbots to attend to customers. Consequently, the amount of time spent handling customer queries and complaints will be reduced significantly. 

The future of business is dependent on big data. Artificial Intelligence is not only dependent on, but will be vital in making sense of this data. Success of any business in the future will be anchored on its ability to preserve vast amounts of data. Using this data, AI-enabled machines will be able to deep-content analysis and evidence-based reasoning to accelerate and improve decision making in companies (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019). This phenomenon can also be helpful in establishing predictions, patterns, and trends. Such information will be crucial for businesses in the finance and stock market sectors. 

Artificial intelligence will help businesses in lead generation. Lead generation refers to the identification and cultivation of potential clients for a particular business's services and products. For businesses, the expenses related to acquisition of customers through lead generation cannot be ignored. In this regard, businesses will be required to use AI systems since they are capable of processing data more efficiently and accurately compared to humans (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019). For instance, such systems can analyze consumer data by using the targeted persons' social media or interests. The systems can also analyze the individuals' human language, subsequently compiling a clear picture of the potential customer's persona. 

The other notable aspect of business that will be affected by AI is supply chain. This will result in increased accuracy and agility due to automation of previously manual processes (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019). Notable applications of AI in the supply chain include AI-enabled machines like inventory-taking drones, program guided equipment like autonomous warehouse carts, anomaly-detection software, and lastly, improved data analytics, and lastly. In order for businesses to take advantage of such features in the future, they will have to embrace technologies like robotic process automation (RPA) and natural language processing (NLP). 

The future of recruitment process is in AI. Integrating AI into the recruitment processes will help businesses in finding prospective employees quicker and easier By doing so, companies will be able to save both money and time. Besides facilitating the identification of the right candidate, AI is efficient in identifying the candidate best fitted for the role in question (Amit, 2019; Bullock, 2019). To achieve this, AI rapidly accesses the prospective candidate's online activity and presence. This step is crucial in matching this online presence with the ethos of the company. The second option is use of AI-enabled video interviews. Such interviews use psychometric and biometric analysis in gauging the tone of voice of the candidate, evaluating micro-expressions, and assessing body language. While these aspects can be achieved manually, AI is more precise. This accuracy will be crucial in the future as competition for talent increases globally. 

C loud C omputing 

Cloud computing can be conceptualized as large-scale network computing (Subiksha, 2018). This form of computing is dependent on servers that are distributed through the internet. It also made possible by application software that is cloud-based. Cloud computing interface often runs on browsers in smartphones, laptops, tablets, and workstations. The software applications that are intended for the cloud are both administered and installed on internet-based servers. These servers are third-party and are accessible at will. Cloud computing is capable of offering all the functionally found in a LAN-based application software. This technology aids in sharing software, information, and resources via a computer network (Subiksha, 2018). By embracing cloud computing, a business reduces the amount of software and hardware required locally. This is because the local devices can easily run the interface software for the cloud computing system. Functioning of the needed software is subsequently taken up by the network servers, data storage, and computer systems.

Cloud computing is bound to affect businesses in various ways. Amongst these effects is efficient communication. In particular, the technology is capable of offering businesses cost-effective and dependable IP-based connections. This move will enable business managers to communicate with their employees remotely (Subiksha, 2018). Due to the cloud's dependability and speed, employees are able to work anywhere without losing any data. This attribute is important particularly as businesses embrace remote work. By using the cloud, employees are also able to call each other for free. As on-screen and video communication becomes the norm for most businesses, cloud computing will be indispensable in the future. These features will also aid in enhancing customer support.

Cloud computing is bound to increase access in businesses. This way, projects, data, and important business software can be accessed from any part of the world as long as there is an internet connection (Subiksha, 2018). Consequently, members of staff do not necessarily need to install business software and other important applications on their laptops. Instead, all they need is a device that is capable of accessing the cloud. This enhances security in that loss or damage to a computer does not affect access to data since another device can be used.

The responsibility of upgrading the cloud falls on the vendor responsible for providing the cloud software. This feature will not only cut costs for businesses, it will also make technical support efficient (Subiksha, 2018). The cut costs include those of supporting and training the team responsible for maintaining the network infrastructure, upgrading the operating systems, and security patches. Cloud computing will also aid in enhancing collaboration. This is by providing a dependable, easy, fast way of promoting collaboration between team members. For example, cloud-based documents are accessible any time to any member. As a result, team members can provide feedback, updates, and reviews easily. This way, an employee working remotely can make changes to a document, save it, and his or her colleagues have immediate access to these changes.

Using cloud computing, scaling businesses will be easy and efficient. Often, businesses expand their capabilities and infrastructure as they grow. Once they embrace the cloud, these entities will not be required to predict their server requirements or purchase extra storage space. With cloud computing, all businesses need to do is to revise their subscription with their chosen cloud service provider (Subiksha, 2018). Thus, the service provider just allocates the business more space according to its immediate requirements. This feature ensures that operational efficiency is achieved. Besides scaling up, businesses can also scale down. This flexibility offers unprecedented opportunities for both large and small firms.

By embracing the cloud, businesses are able to obscure any complexity associated with their operations from their end- user. In particular, companies are able to enhance sophistication of their services and products and at the same time keep the level of customer knowledge required the same (Subiksha, 2018). This way, the end-user does not need to worry about maintenance or upgrades since these take place in the background.

D ron es 

Also referred to as unarmed aerial vehicles (UAV), drones are pilotless aircraft whose operation is aided by a mix of technologies. Notable among these technologies include AI and object avoidance. The UAVs also use Light Detection and Ranging ( LIDAR), which is a remote sensing technology that makes use of rapid laser pulses in mapping out the earth's surface. While drones have previously been used exclusively by the military, they are now more common (Kieran, n.d.). Currently, drones have their way to such sectors as entertainment and sports among others. Business entities such as Uber and Amazon are already using the drone technology to deliver clients' orders. In Agriculture, UAVs are used to monitor crops and animals. The technology has also been deployed in locating missing individuals. It is also increasingly been used in engineering and design.

The drone technology will undoubtedly continue impacting the business world in the future. Commercial application of drones goes beyond photography and basic surveillance to include almost all industries (Kieran, n.d.).; Vergouw et al., 2016 ). For example, insurance companies have embraced drone technology and are using it for inspection of damaged assets. This technology is expected to affect businesses in various ways. Firstly, the drones will lead to increased efficiency as businesses seek to save time. For, the delivery business will be significantly enhanced by this technology. Due to saving both money and time, drones will result in increased efficiency.

Drones will result in unprecedented changes in the management of human resources. While the technology will replace some jobs, it will create other opportunities ( Vergouw et al., 2016). For example, it will replace low-level jobs embracing more analytical ones instead. Another area of business that will be affected by drone technology is inventory management. In the future, it will be possible to fly drones in warehouses to scan the inventory's bar codes. This is because UAVs can confirm a company's inventor using a proportion of the time used by human beings. The drone technology will also have more impact on business's supply chain compared to customer delivery. 

B lockchai n 

Blockchain is a technology that enables businesses and individuals track their transactions from the start to finish in the absence of a central authority that is traditionally responsible for preservation of transactions or encryption of the data. This technology compartmentalizes such transactions, makes the history of transactions transparent, and secures the transactions ( Nowiński & Kozma, 2017; Konstantinidis et al., 2018). With regard to transparency, the blockchain helps business owners know their suppliers, source of the products sold, and date of expiry, among other vital information. Other aspects like ethical sourcing, and authenticity of goods are also made possible by blockchain. Moreover, this technology makes it possible for businesses to generate auditable and digitally permanent records that investors and stakeholders can use. Blockchain's applications range from cryptocurrency, record keeping, securities, to smart contracting. It is undeniable that the blockchain will have unprecedented effects on businesses in the future. 

The blockchain technology is expected to significantly lower businesses' operational expenses. For example, business entities, by using smart contracts, will be able to receive and send payments thus eliminate escrow agents, brokers, and other expensive financial intermediaries. By enforcing contracts using cryptographic codes, smart contracts are unbreakable ( Konstantinidis et al., 2018). Since all actions pertaining to a given smart contract are recorded and transparent, the costs of reconciliation and tracking are reduced significantly. For global entities, this feature can be used in managing administrative tasks like managing the payroll. 

Blockchain will increasingly be used in asset protection in the future. This is by reducing cybercrime damage. Blockchain-based transactions are not anchored on a centralized storage system thus cannot be changed or tampered with. They also store the generated data using complicated software and math rules making them impossible to manipulate or tamper with (Nowiński & Kozma, 2017; Stambolija, 2019 ). By cutting off middlemen, blockchain will be increasingly attractive to businesses that entail acting as a third-party in transactions. Examples include settlements, contracts, and banking, among others. By eliminating middlemen, blockchain reduces overhead costs not only for individuals but also for business entities, particularly when they are trading assets. 

In the future, businesses will be able to use blockchain in the hiring process. This is by helping human resources departments in verifying job candidates' credentials as well as those of current employees ( Stambolija, 2019) . Likewise, blockchain will ensure that third-party companies do not provide false information about the candidates. In marketing, blockchain technology will aid in reducing 'click frauds.' Subsequently, this will increase businesses' ability to connect with the targeted audience. Lastly, blockchain's applications in the legal field will increase the legal firms' ability to obtain hard evidence as well as case-related contradictions. 

1. Pros and Cons of I mplementati ng N ew T echnologies in S mall B usinesses 

New technologies, especially those espoused by the 4IR, have definitely revolutionized various aspects of business operations in the 21 st century. This trend is expected to continue in the future. For small businesses, however, adoption of new technologies results in both advantages and disadvantages. As a result, these businesses have to be careful when embracing new technologies.

Disadvantages 

The first and most important challenge that small businesses are likely to encounter is the cost of adopting of new technologies ( Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). By investing in new technologies, most companies never experience impacts of their investment in the short-term but rather in the long term. Small businesses often have limited budget. Thus, small companies may experience challenges when investing their meagre resources in a technology that takes time to impact its immediate operations. Generally, however, adopting new technology often requires financial muscle which small businesses rarely have.

Adopting a new technology may introduce rigidity in the operations of small businesses. This is because each technology introduces a particular way of doing things. New technology is likely to limit a small business to a particular mode of operation. This may be disadvantageous to a small business since the survival of such an entity is dependent on its ability to be agile ( Ramayah et al., 2009 ). This implies that the business is ill-prepared for any shifts in the market. On the other hand, the preference for small businesses amongst employees is informed by the fact that these businesses rarely have strict polices. Thus, adoption of new technology in a small business may lead to loss of valuable talent.

The workforce in a small business is likely to experience difficulties adopting new technology. This depends on the nature of the technology. For example, a technology may be too complicated for employees to embrace. Likewise, owing to a limited budget, the business may have challenges training the workforce. Lack of qualified workforce to handle a new technology is thus a key challenge.

Most new technologies are dependent on the internet. This implies that they are highly susceptible to attach by hackers. By adopting a new technology, a small business may increase its vulnerability to attack by viruses, ransomware, or malware ( Ramayah et al., 2009 ). Such attacks could compromise the business's ability to carry out its online operations or vital business data. Small businesses that are incapable of deploying the most effective protective measures may end up losing valuable data and compromising its operations.

Advantages 

Adoption of new technologies is advantageous to small businesses in multifaceted ways. For instance, adoption of cloud computing is likely to improve the business's daily operations, increase output, improve customer experience, and spur business growth ( Subiksha, 2018). Likewise, the cloud may allow a small business to rent software for use. This option is helpful in that it saves the business money, time, and stress. By offering software as a service (SaaS), the cloud is able to provide various business needs at a lower cost. Notable among these offerings include accounting, communications, presentation, and customer relationship management solutions, among others. Apart from being cost-effective, cloud computing is also efficient.

New technologies can significantly enhance communications in a small business. For instance, the cloud-based Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is developed in such a way that that based on business growth, it can be scaled up or down. Using this technology the staff can mask their home or mobile number with one that is trustworthy or business-like as the caller ID. Also, any business callers are seamlessly forwarded to the staff mobile numbers enabling them to answer business calls remotely. This phenomenon offers a small business flexibility while reducing the inconveniences and cost associated with installing a landline. It also ensures the business's infrastructure and technology will allow quick growth during the good time and scale back as fast during lean times.

New technologies help in streamlining processes while facilitating automation. Consequently, a small business is able to run efficiently and lower its costs. These technologies have also resulted to creation of larger and mobile workforce than ever before. For example 5G and cloud computing ensure that mobile and remote workers can access company information, resources, and programs from all over the world ( Marr, 2019; Duggal, 2020). This arrangement also safeguards company documents since employees do not have to carry them in their devices. Clients can also access any necessary information via the internet, respond in real-time via e-mail, and send large files. These attributes make it possible for small businesses to save time and carryout global operations. 

1. Guidelines for Adoption and Implementation of New Technologies in Small Businesses 

Adoption and implementation of new technologies are amongst the key drivers of small businesses today. For example, customers are increasingly discriminating between the small businesses that are embracing technological innovations and those that are complacent. On the other hand, employees are more likely to be innovative and engaged if they are working in a company that is flexible, open to collaboration, and powered by various cutting edge technologies. Thus, by adopting new technologies, small business inevitably promotes their bottom line ( Ghobakhloo et al., 2012 ). While this is important, several key factors have to be considered before settling for a particular technology, adopting, and finally implementing it. These include;

Clear Understanding of the Technology 

Before adopting new technology, it is important for the management of a small business to keenly study it first. A technology that is ripe for adaption should be user-friendly and offer clarity with regard to interface health, process flow, and performance status. This type of technology will empower both decisions and actions leading to multiple improvements in the business ( Ramayah et al., 2009; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012) . Conversely, a technology that seeks to improve business outcomes but is not comprehensible is likely to impact the business negatively.

Evaluation of the Available Options 

Before embracing a technology, business executives are expected to evaluate the available options thoroughly. Firstly, they must examine how the different options will help the business meet its goal. Secondly, the management ought to evaluate whether or not the technology is a good fit for their business. Following this evaluation, the executives should list the requirements for the most appropriate option, ultimately selecting the one that meets these requirements.

Examine the Return on Investment 

Adoption of a new technology is not only strenuous but is also takes a lot of time from those spearheading the process. Thus, it is important that the costs and benefits of the new technology are well understood. Its impacts on the company's bottomline also have to be understood so as to justify the efforts and resources used ( Ramayah et al., 2009; Ghobakhloo et al., 2012) . Understanding the technology's return on investment is therefore, very important. 

Cybersecurity 

Successful implementation of a new technology is dependent on its ability to be attack-proof. This is because the biggest hindrances to introduction of new technology in the world today include inside threats and cybersecurity. These elements may make the maintenance and operation of new technology impossible. 

The Gap to be filled by the Technology 

Often, technology in a business entity is expected to facilitate smarter ways of executing tasks. Thus, the business's top management has to keep up with developments in their organization so that they can promptly identify a need when it arises. This way, the executives are better equipped to identify their business's key technological needs. Ultimately, a justifiable use case should be the basis of adopting any technology. 

The Technology's Long-Term Competitive Advantage 

Technology evolves every day. This makes deciding on the most appropriate time for adopting a new technology difficult. Business executives should ignore marketing and ensure that the chosen technology is valuable to the business both in the short and long-run. Since it takes time for a new technology to be fully operational, executives should focus on the technology's lasting competitive advantage

Consider Customer Needs 

Sufficient understanding of a small business's customer needs and requirements should be considered when adopting a new technology. This ensures that the chosen technology is not only fit for the organization but is bound to generate the right outcome ( Ghobakhloo et al., 2012). 

Impact of the Technology on the Business Model 

Executives need to consider the ways in which the adopted technology is likely to affect the business operations. This is besides cost savings and increased productivity, such technologies as AI, blockchain, and cloud are likely to affect change marketing, customer service, operating, and sales models. The transformational impact of a new technology on a small business's core functions has to be examined.

Culture of the Provider 

The culture of a prospective new technology's provider should not be ignored. This culture may be reflected in the technology. Executives should adopt a new technology from a provider who exhibits a culture of continuous improvement, customer service, and innovation. The vendor should be one who is excited over small wins, has a good delivery track record, and interested in the small business's success.

Impact on the Bottomline 

New technology should be geared towards increasing the adopting business's profitability. Thus, business executives should choose a technology that helps the business in protecting and growing its revenue. This technology would also have to help the company in reducing complexity and solve the particular problem it is intended to address. 

1. Conclusion 

All industries have been experiencing massive, rapid, and devastating changes in recent decades. These changes are driven by technological advances that are occurring globally. Businesses have to prepare themselves by adapting to or adopting new and emerging technologies because their survival in business depends on it. This is especially true for small businesses. Small businesses have to overcome various challenges and barriers to the adoption of new technology so as to grow and remain competitive. In support of this narrative, history is replete with examples of companies that failed for not embracing new technology. Notable among these companies include Nokia, Xerox, Blockbuster, Motorola, and Kodak. Thus, with the emergence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, small businesses cannot afford to be left behind. The success of these businesses will be influenced by such 4IR-related technologies as Artificial Intelligence, Drones, Cloud Computing, Blockchain, and 5G. To benefit from these new technologies, the top management of small businesses has to understand the pros and cons of adoption. The executives also have to put several vital factors into consideration before deciding the technologies that fit their organizations. Overall, for small businesses to succeed in the future, the adoption of new technologies is requisite. 

1.  
2. References 

Almeida, J. F. C. R. D. (2011). Blockbuster: the fall of a giant (Doctoral dissertation). 

Amit, N. (2019). 6 Ways in Which Artificial Intelligence Will Impact Business in the Coming Decade. Retrieved from https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/6-ways-in-which-artificial-intelligence-will-impact-business-in-coming-decade-e11bb4b95bc2 

Barabba, V. (2011). Decision Loom . Triarchy press. 

Borhanuddin, B., & Iqbal, A. (2016). Nokia: an historical case study. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology: eJCIST , 6 (1). 

Bullock, L. (2019). The Top 6 Ways That Artificial Intelligence Will Affect Your Business In The Near Future. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/lilachbullock/2019/02/25/the-top-6-ways-that-artificial-intelligence-will-affect-your-business-in-the-near-future/?sh=a595fe619660 

Burgelman, R. A. (2018). Yves L. Doz and Keeley Wilson: Ringtone: Exploring the Rise and Fall of Nokia in Mobile Phones.

Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail . Harvard Business Review Press. 

Chopra, S., & Veeraiyan, M. (2017). Movie rental business: Blockbuster, netflix, and redbox. Kellogg School of Management Cases . 

Ciesielska, M. (2018). Nokia on the slope: The failure of a hybrid open/closed source model. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , 19 (3), 218-225. 

Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2008). The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia's rollercoaster experience. California Management Review , 50 (3), 95-118. 

Duggal, N. (2020). T op 9 New Technology Trends for 2021. Retrieved from https://www.simplilearn.com/top-technology-trends-and-jobs-article 

Gavetti, G., Henderson, R., & Giorgi, S. (2003). Kodak (A) . Harvard Business School Publishing. 

Ghobakhloo, M., Hong, T. S., Sabouri, M. S., & Zulkifli, N. (2012). Strategies for successful information technology adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises. Information , 3 (1), 36-67. 

Howard, R. (1992). The CEO as organizational architect: An interview with Xerox's Paul Allaire. Harvard Business Review , 70 (5), 106-121. 

Jones, M., & Jain, R. (2002). Technology transfer for SMEs: challenges and barriers. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation , 1 (1-2), 146-162. 

Jordan, A. K. (2011). The Effects of Netflix and Blockbuster Strategies on Firm Value. 

Kieran, M. (n.d.). How will drones impact the business environment? Retrieved from https://www.ghd.com/en/perspectives/how-will-drones-impact-the-business-environment.aspx 

Konstantinidis, I., Siaminos, G., Timplalexis, C., Zervas, P., Peristeras, V., & Decker, S. (2018, July). Blockchain for business applications: A systematic literature review. In International Conference on Business Information Systems (pp. 384-399). Springer, Cham. 

Kotok, A (2020). How Will 5G Affect Business? Retrieved from https://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=40080 

Lamberg, J. A. (2019). Ringtone: Exploring the rise and fall of Nokia in mobile phones. 

Lucas Jr, H. C., & Goh, J. M. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems , 18 (1), 46-55. 

Marr, B. (2019). What Is 5G Technology And How Must Businesses Prepare For It? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/10/25/what-is-5g-technology-and-how-must-businesses-prepare-for-it/?sh=57523b131758 

McKeen, R. G. (2010). Droid v. iPhone. ABAJ , 96 , 56. 

Mui, C. (2012). How Kodak failed. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2012/01/18/how-kodak-failed/?sh=27b08b766f27 

Nowiński, W., & Kozma, M. (2017). How can blockchain technology disrupt the existing business models?. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review , 5 (3), 173-188. 

Ramayah, T., Osman, M., Omar, A., & Marimuthu, M. (2009). Technology adoption among small and medium enterprises (SME's): A research agenda. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. Proceedings , 3 (5), 512-515. 

Satell, G. (2014). A Look Back At Why Blockbuster Really Failed And Why It Didn't Have To. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/09/05/a-look-back-at-why-blockbuster-really-failed-and-why-it-didnt-have-to/?sh=5fc846f41d64 

Stambolija, R. (2019) . Five Ways Blockchain Can Transform Traditional Business and Impact the Market in the Future. Retrieved from https://medium.com/mvp-workshop/five-ways-blockchain-can-transform-traditional-business-and-impact-the-market-in-the-future-6310a9554214 

Steinbock, D. (2005). The mobile revolution: The making of mobile services worldwide . Kogan Page Publishers. 

Vergouw, B., Nagel, H., Bondt, G., & Custers, B. (2016). Drone technology: Types, payloads, applications, frequency spectrum issues and future developments. In The future of drone use (pp. 21-45). TMC Asser Press, The Hague. 

Xu, M., David, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution: opportunities and challenges. International journal of financial research , 9 (2), 90-95.