°The difficulty of understanding (to explain) the concept of radical change (disruptive innovation)

Today there seems to be no awareness of the meaning of the terms often referred to as the concept of innovation as “radical”, “different” (“disruptive”).

This does not allow the majority of the Market Player to develop a truly salable value in an era of radical changes such as the current one (of disruptive innovation).

In times of radical change (Breaking Point) like changes in strategies – changes to strategies – changes to strategies the product (to the results of sales).

That is necessary to make a radical “change of mindset and structures (to true change of the Business Paradigm).

The Disruptive Innovation

.

The fact is that terms like “radical”, “different” and “disruptive” indicate

 a substantial difference, or
something absolutely new which is found
ON A PLAN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE.

The problem is that today efforts are being made to develop “different” strategies which, however, remain on the same level, on the same qualitative level as the previous strategies.

That is the difference in this case the change cannot be on a quantitative level, but must be on a quantitative level.

.

The point is that whoever is getting success knows what radical change – disruptive innovation – means. While it seems to be almost impossible to explain that meaning to those who continue to follow the principles of the pre-disruption market (the incumbents as companies, managers and consultants).

The fact is that, as in all phases, the epochal changes

● it is very difficult to explain the new that is emerging with the terms of the old culture;

● only those who can understand the thing at the level of intuition (at a level that is not purely rational) are able to implement really disruptive strategies.

.

Perhaps the only two ways to try to explain the meaning of Disruptive Innovation are:

1. an explanation of “what is not” disruption

2. for examples

1. “what is not” disruption

 It is crucial to understand that, among other things, a radical, disruptive innovation:

 ► is not a quantitative improvement of what we had before, such as, for example, an improvement in performance, or a decrease in prices.

It is therefore not an improvement of technologies (technologies, as innovative as they are “powerful”, are not disruptive at all; in other words, they are not able to bring new attractive qualities for the new Demand).

see:

● see Disruptive innovation is not based on technologies

● see Towards a new (real) sustainability: the mistake of focusing on the low price

► is not something that can be developed by companies that do not have a radically new mindset: to develop radically new products, it is necessary to have radically new methods and structures.

● see The great Firms are not able to develop disruptive innovation within them

► it is not something that can be developed top-down, since the new Demand is characterized by new needs which are  (1) Evolving needs: in times of rapid change, the needs of consumers are constantly evolving (new needs are moving targets). (2) Hidden needs   in the phases of change, in which the problems that everyone has to face continually increase, the needs are often hidden (there is still a lack of full awareness of the specific characteristics of these needs, even by Customers),

see:

● see The hidden demamd (the virtuous circle of innovation)

● see Hidden Demand/Evolving Needs

● see Disruption is a quantum leap that can not be predicted with statistics

● see Innovation is intrinsically (historically) bottom-up

2. examples of Disruptive Innovation

(An analysis of this type is very complex, and here a rough analysis develops)

There are important examples of products that, despite having changed the market, have not been at all disruptive: those are products without real innovative qualities, which have begun to reap profits only after traditional strategies have been applied to them to obtain a position of monopoly, and “synergies” with political institutions.

.

Perhaps the most significant case of those products is  Amazon, which simply proposed a Mail Order service no longer based on paper catalogs, but on a Web Site (the only innovation was precisely technology, the Web, which, compared to paper, allowed “more powerful” performance, and lower costs).

The Sony Walkman was disruptive, because it was a product that allowed users to radically use music (this portable audio-cassette player paved the way for products that are no longer disruptive like the iPod in the first versions).

Basically non-disruptive was the first generation of mobile phones, which were essentially a technological improvement of domestic cordless phones (Nokia is also an example of how a big player of the previous generation is not able to develop products in phases of radical changes in the market).

Other examples of big players that have changed the market without having disruptive innovation adopted are Blockbuster. Even Uber is not disruptive, although very intelligent: it still lacks “social” functions that differentiate it from Taxi services (it is based more than anything else on being cheaper). More disruptive are Bla Bla Car and Couchsurfing.

.

.

My Articles on Misunderstandings about innovation

 Today there seems to be a lot of confusion about the trends that are developing on the Market: for each Trend, there are interpretations of a completely opposite sign.

At the basis of everything there is – as often happens in modern culture – a semantic question, of meanings of terms.

It happens that over time some terms that describe social aspects of human life take on a different meaning from the original one.

.

● The difficulty of understanding (to explain) the concept of radical change (disruptive innovation) -  There is a lack of of the meaning of the terms referred to innovation like "radical", "different" ("disruptive"). This does not allow the majority of the Market Player to develop a truly salable value. These terms indicate a substantial difference, or something absolutely new which is found on a plan completely different from the previous one. but today efforts are being made to develop "different" strategies which, however, remain on the same level, on the same qualitative level as the previous strategies.

● The basic misunderstanding on real (disruptive) innovation - Disruptive innovation is a “revolution” of the context in which it operates: this means “radical change” (from the roots) of culture, of the mindset used up to that point (change of operating principles, of conception of values, of a design approach, of types of communication, etc.).

● The lack of a real Innovation - Today there is no real innovation (attractive and sustainable for Customer), both by the part of the Big Player of the Market and by the part of the Public Administration.

● Disruptive innovation: religion, scam or necessity for those who want to stay in the market? – Today the market continues to apply a non-disruptive mindset even when the data indicate this modality  inexorably fails.

To innovate means to change. When there are major changes in the Society, it is necessary to adapt. There is no choice.

Are we sure that we understand what radical (disruptive) innovation is?

● The misunderstanding on the real meaning of the Trends (Meta-trends and Fake-trends) [1]

.

● Disruptive innovation is not based on technologies

● The misunderstanding on ecology: electrification of devices that are not ecological in themselves

● Towards a new (real) sustainability: the mistake of focusing on the low price

● Misunderstanding: the future is not futuristic as one imagines it today°

● “Futuristic vision” and insustainable products: cases of Flying cars, self-driving cars and electric city car°

● The misunderstanding on Innovation by Manager, Consultants and Pundits - Today Managers and Consultants & the “intellectuals” are focused on the past: it is not bad faith, but it is a lack of ability to recognize the new.

● The misunderstanding on Industry 4.0: towards Manufacturing 4.0 - The “revolution” (dirsruption) that is transforming the world of production is a phenomenon radically different from the one today defined as Industry 4.0.

The change concerns not only the product, but everything connected to it. Today it is necessary: a rethinking - the why of a product - the ideation/design process - the production/distribution process. We move on to a new era of the new Economy: the Context economy.

● Does it really exist to the possibility of having an Artificial Intelligence? (the unsustainability of the AI) [1] - Can a “machine”  actually make correct decisions? Science, with foundamentals principles (many  Nobels) says No.

● The great Firms are not able to develop disruptive innovation within them - the consolidated companies of the market literally can’t develop disruptive innovation within them. they are the object of disruption, and therefore can not be the subject. the problem: ● lack of “intuition” ● lack of culture of (real) innovation. a real (disruptive) innovation can only come with a fresh start, from new comers.

<

My Articles on New Form of Innovation (Disruptive Innovation)

In the current profound and rapid changes, it is necessary to completely redefine products and Company by adopting a radically new form of innovation.

[ INNOVA site ]

● ‘'Manifesto of Innovation: the basic principles of sustainable innovation'    Today there is no critical reflection on the failures of the Market, and therefore it continues unabated to proceed WITH THE SAME MINDSET (PARADIGM) WHICH HAS PRODUCED THE PROBLEMS THAT WE WANT TO SOLVE. A reflection on the basic principles of sustainable innovation.

● ‘Manifesto of Innovation (2): Innovation in the new post-industrial Market’  A third phase of the development of the modern (post-industrial) Company / Market is in progress. THE SOCIETY MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS NOW MANAGED "BOTTOM UP". A new Economy based on Subsidiarity is developed, and A POST-INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION MODE THAT EXCEEDS THE "MASS PRODUCTION".

[ TrendInsights site ]

● Introduction to the Disruptive Innovation: the concept of Innovation [1] THE CONCEPT OF INNOVATION IN ITSELF MUST BE RADICALLY CHANGED. Innovation based on a continuous improvement of the products does not work when in History there are radical changes (as it was, for example, in the Industrial Revolution, or as it happens now).

● What disruption essentially is ► The concept of disruption is not an "invention" of someone, but the description of a real phenomenon that affects our civilization. ► THE DISRUPTION IS IN ITSELF A NEUTRAL CONCEPT: it is positive for those who adapt to changes, and strongly negative for who remains on previous Models.

● The lack of a real Innovation Today there is no real innovation (actractive and sustanable for Customer), both by the part of the Big Player of the Market and by the part of the Public Administration.

● New mode of Innovation (Key of Changes #3)  In an era of profound changes, the concept of innovation itself must change. Today a substantial innovation is needed, which is able to develop a really-useful value for the Customer.

● Trend Forecasting for the Disruption Age° Big Player strategies very often are not able to achieve sales success: the cause is the inability to understand the real meaning of change (of Trends). It is necessary to ● understand the complexity of the interactive evolution of a system like the Market ● to go beyond the current Marketing.

● Innovation is intrinsically (historically) bottom-up    Today very often the innovation strategies do not work because innovation is planned in top-down mode (regardless of the real needs of the people), and this does not allow the development of attractive products for the customers.

● The misunderstanding on Innovation by Manager, Consultants and Pundits – Today Managers and Consultants & the “intellectuals” are focused on the past: it is not bad faith, but it is a lack of ability to recognize the new.

[ LB CONSULTING site ]

● A new approach for Smart City   A reflection on the innovation of the Cities (Smart Cities), which leads to conclusions that are radically different from those that currently drive public and private projects in this area. Some specific highly innovative projects

Proposals

● A new approach for PA innovation and Smart Cities (proposal)

●Proposal of Partnership

My articles on new Bottom-up Marketing (Crowd-driven market)

In a market characterized by a new Demand is no longer possible to understand with traditional marketing tools, IT IS NECESSARY TO RADICALLY INNOVATE THE MARKETING ITSELF.

. We witness a Crowd-ization of the Market: Customers must be integrated into  Design (taylor-made products) and into Production processes.

.

● Toward a New Marketing (1): beyond the Analytic Marketing, toward a pro-sumer Market -  THE CURRENT CONCEPT OF MARKET ANALYSIS (as observation / or Listening to Customers) IS OBSOLETE, Big Data strategies must be replaced by Marketing of Pro-sumers.

● New modality of Consumerism (Key of Changes #2) - To understand the new Demand it is first of all necessary to understand which are the main trends that affect the market in the near future: ● a radical change in the forms of consumption (customer needs and expectations). ● a “revolution” of the product development (and production / distribution) methods.

● The wrong interpretation of the Customer Experience - With Customer Experience today we use obsolete principles. It is necessary to change the paradigm of Marketing, which from a "subtle" persuasion system to the purchase of a product, MUST GO BACK TO BEING A PROCESS THAT STARTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE REAL NEEDS OF PEOPLE.

● New mode of Innovation (Key of Changes #3) - In an era of profound changes, the concept of innovation itself must change. Today a substantial innovation is needed, which is able to develop a really-useful value for the Customer.

● Towards a new (real) sustainability: the mistake of focusing on the low price - The inability to understand the essence of change leads us to think that the response to the reduced spending of the Customers must be a reduced price of the product. But the plus point of the product is not the low-price (which is also necessary), but in its sustainability.

● The problems of the current Market strategies: toward a crowd participated Marketing - CURRENT MARKETING IS NOT ABLE TO INTERPRET THE NEW NEEDS OF CUSTOMERS. Thanks to Information Technologies today it is possible to change the role of Consumer by inserting them in the product development process.