The problem does not seem to be the fact that there are too many definitions. Although, in fact, initially Christensen wanted to make a too specific classification, stating that in his “Disruptive Innovation” terms such as “revolution” or “radical” cannot be used.
<see Limits in current interpretations of disruptive innovation>
But then Christensen realized that he hadn’t centered the problem well, and shifted the focus on the essence of the D.I. – in “Competing Against Luck”.
But few have noticed it, remaining tied to its initial positions (the synthesis would be the Job-to-be-done concept that explains the meaning of Disruptive Innovation in a general and profound way). .
Instead, the problem is to understand the meaning of change. Change is radical. It is therefore necessary to change the way of seeing things to understand what the Paradigm schift means (both for the product and for the Company’s structures and mindsets).
And then adapt (today it seems that we are trying to change things in the “old way”, and this is not working.
<see Guidelines [2]: WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT Disruptive innovation>
