7.1 Natural Selection in Technological Evolution

Marcos Antonio de Lima Filho, PhD.

The analogies between biological evolution and technological innovation are as old as the concept of evolution itself. Unfortunately, much of the discourse has treated these analogies metaphorically. This approach, while intellectually stimulating, often lacked empirical support. This study aims to change this. By analysing a comprehensive dataset that tracks the development, adoption, and displacement of technologies over time, this study seeks to identify and substantiate evolutionary patterns in technology that echo those found in biology.

The data reveals that technologies, like biological species, undergo a process of variation, selection, and replication. Consider the case of smartphones: Consumer preference for larger displays has directed the industry towards increasingly larger screen sizes. This can be likened to a population of organisms evolving towards one extreme of a trait distribution under the influence of positive directional selection. This directional pattern can also be observed in other industries. The aviation industry, for instance, has consistently improved fuel efficiency since its inception, showcasing the directional evolution driven by market selection.

Based on data and illuminated by evolutionary theory, this study conceptualises three other types of innovation besides disruptive innovation, such as directional innovation, stabilising innovation, and purifying innovation. The literature review presents these distinct modes of natural selection (Sections 2.4 to 2.7). A basic comprehension of these patterns is necessary for appreciating the analogies presented throughout this research. Thus, this section also discusses classic examples and modern studies of directional selection in species such as finches, peppered moths, Pacific salmon, and bighorn sheep.

In the natural environment, natural selection can favor individuals at one end of the trait distribution, leading to an overall shift in the population towards that extreme. This phenomenon, known as positive directional selection, results in increasing fitness with increasing trait values (Kingsolver & Pfennig, 2007). The same principle can also be observed in the technological domain.

Consider the case of smartphones, a technological “species” that has seen a fast-paced evolution since its inception. Display size is one of the key differentiating traits of these products. Over the years, consumer preference has consistently leaned towards smartphones with larger displays. In this scenario, smartphone “fitness” — measured in terms of its sales and market acceptance — increases with increasing display size. This preference for larger screens, akin to positive directional selection in biological evolution, has steered the evolution of smartphones towards larger display sizes (Figure 7.1.1).

For traits under positive directional selection, the population will evolve larger trait values, whereas for those under negative directional selection, the population will evolve smaller trait values (Kingsolver & Pfennig, 2007). An illustrative example of negative directional selection can be found in certain animal populations, such as Pacific salmon and bighorn sheep, where smaller individuals have been found to have greater fitness than larger ones. In these species, being smaller conferred lower predation risks, which ultimately contribute to higher survival and reproductive success.

This compares with the disadvantages of large wide-body aircraft such as the A380 and the 747. Despite their impressive size and passenger capacity, these large aircraft have proven to be less “fit” in the current aviation market. They are more expensive to operate and less fuel-efficient than smaller, more modern aircraft, which translates to higher operational costs and environmental impact. As a result, the aviation industry has shifted towards smaller, more efficient wide-body and narrow-body aircraft, mirroring the principle of negative directional selection.

Hence, it is crucial to recognise that incremental innovation is not merely about the outcome - an improved product or service — but rather the ongoing process of directional selection that drives these advancements. By adopting an evolutionary perspective, we can understand incremental innovations as an ongoing process – a series of adaptations in response to shifting selection pressures, be they customer preferences, market dynamics, technological capabilities, or regulatory changes.

The evolution of smartphones also reveals a cyclical, dynamic relationship between disruptive innovation and other innovation patterns, such as directional, stabilising, and purifying. To better understand this relationship, I will break down the histograms presented in Figure 7.1.1:

A wide diversity of form factors, display sizes, and screen-to-body ratios marked the 2006–2007 biennium. During this period, consumers could choose between mobile phones equipped with a full QWERTY keyboard (such as Keyboard Bars, Side-Sliders, and PDAs) or those featuring a more compact 3x4 numerical keypad (like Flip Phones, Sliders, and Bar Phones). Abernathy would describe this era as a “fluid phase”, a period characterised by intense experimentation as competitors explore novel technologies and design concepts.

As the years passed, the smartphone industry began to gravitate towards a single product architecture: the touchscreen Slate. As discussed in Section 6.4, the iPhone pioneered a new architecture, inspiring a shift in the dominant design of smartphones. With the iPhone, Apple redefined the mobile phone and created a new dominant design for mobile devices (West & Mace, 2010).

Once such a dominant design emerges, future technological progress tends to revolve around incremental improvements elaborating the standard, and the technological regime becomes more orderly as one design becomes its standard expression (Anderson & Tushman, 1990). Consequently, the emergence of a dominant design can be seen as a milestone or transition point that significantly shapes the trajectory of an industry (Suárez & Utterback, 1995). In this context, the introduction of the iPhone marked a turning point, exemplifying this transformative process in the mobile phone industry.

Figure 7.1.1 captures this process. In the years that followed the iPhone's launch, the touchscreen slate design gained traction, yet it continued to coexist with other phone architectures (2008-2011, top). However, the subsequent years witnessed an increasing market shift towards touchscreen smartphones, which became the dominant design by 2012-2015 (bottom).

The evolution of smartphones demonstrates how an industry transitioned from a period of disruptive innovations, characterised by a wealth of diverse and novel architectures, to an era dominated by incremental innovations focused on a single dominant design.

In the early stages of mobile phone evolution, there was considerable diversity in form factors. However, with the advent and subsequent popularity of the slate design, the variety in smartphone form factors practically disappeared. Coincidence or not, in nature, directional selection also tends to reduce variation in a population (Kingsolver & Pfennig, 2007). With the emergence of a dominant design, the focus of innovation within the industry shifts. The focus of innovation shifts from new concepts to refining, improving and strengthening the dominant design and its appeal in the market (Abernathy & Clark, 1985).

The evolution of smartphones is an ongoing process, with a wide range of display sizes available for slate smartphones, and companies constantly introducing new features. This diversity enables consumers to choose from a variety of display configurations, as well as cameras, CPUs, batteries, and other features. As long as there is diversity and novelty, the evolution of smartphones will continue. While recent attempts have been made to disrupt the slate architecture, such as the introduction of foldable smartphones, these efforts have yet to garner substantial consumer interest. Despite these attempts, the touchscreen slate is likely to continue dictating the trajectory of the smartphone industry for the foreseeable future. This aligns with the concept of a dominant design as outlined by Abernathy and Clark (1985), which suggests that once established, a dominant design tends to persist and shape the industry for an extended period.

Directional selection is a key mechanism that Charles Darwin proposed as driving the process of evolution (MacColl, 2014). Darwin cited examples such as wolves that could run faster being more successful at hunting deer, and flowers that produced more nectar being more successful in attracting pollinating insects. Analogously, the data presented in this study indicates that smartphones with larger displays and thinner bezels have seen greater commercial success. The selective pressure of customers has caused devices with smaller screens and physical keyboards, like the Palm Treo or the classic BlackBerry (depicted in Figure 7.1.2), to be gradually eliminated from markets.

The increase in display size is simply one instance of directional selection among many others. As evidenced by the findings (Section 5.2), the directional evolution of smartphones can be observed across a variety of product dimensions, including CPUs, memory, storage, cameras, and batteries.

Directional selection is also evident in the evolution of aircraft (Section 4.2). Since the dawn of air transportation, fuel efficiency has been a key driver of incremental evolution. This industry has consistently improved the efficiency of technology platforms (engines and airframe developments) and airline operations (ATAG, 2021). Based on aircraft performance data, this study has found that today’s airliners use 79% less fuel per passenger than the first commercial jet, the Comet I, which flew for the first time in 1953 (Figure 7.6.1). This historic trend reflects seven decades of continuous improvements driven by directional selection.

The observation of natural selection patterns in two diverse industries underscores the necessity of studying innovation under the light of evolutionary theory. The analogy of directional selection is not only useful in explaining the observable effects, such as the increase or decrease of a trait. Most importantly, this correspondence may also extend to the process of innovation itself, which can be understood as the evolution of designs through a process of market selection. By studying the similarities and differences between biological evolution and technological innovation, we gain a deeper insight into the forces and mechanisms that guide the design evolution of products, services, and systems.

Evolution, in turn, can inform innovation strategies and guide decision-making in product development. Just as biologists study the evolution of species to understand their current state and potential future trajectories, so too can technologists, innovators, and strategists apply the principles of evolutionary theory to illuminate the paths of technological progress. Thus, in my view, evolutionary theory can extend beyond a simple inspirational metaphor, offering practical tools and insights for managing and designing new products.