It is difficult to understand how we continue TO MISUNDERSTAND CHRISTENSEN’S IDEA, CITING THE THESIS OF THE FIRST BOOK THAT HE HIMSELF RADICALLY CHANGED. Disruptive Innovation is not based on Techs
The Deseret News article highlights that
there is no Disruptive Technology (ie capable of giving a real competitive advantage).[zotpressInText item=”{6267568:UP9LTSGQ}” style=”modern-language-association” format=”|%num%|”]
The first version of the Disruptive Innovation was corrected immediately [in C. Christensen “The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail ”[zotpressInText item=”{6267568:5YWQP6MH}” style=”modern-language-association” format=”|%num%|”] ], thanks also to Andy Gore (CEO of Intel).
«Criticism occasionally stung Christensen. However, he used it to fuel refinements to his theory, on which he never stopped working.
“There are criticisms that are very important,” [Christensen] told one interviewer. “Never does a theory just pop out in complete form. But rather, the first appearance of the theory is half-baked. Then it improves when people say, ‘it doesn’t account for this,’ or ‘this is an anomaly and it doesn’t explain that.’ It’s very important to have people willing to criticize it for that purpose. ” ».
That is, the first version of Theory was based on “Disruptive technologies”. But this concept has been overcome by the “Job to be done” for the Customer
.
«Christensen initially used the term “disruptive technologies.” Grove dubbed it the “Christensen Effect.” (…)
Disruptive innovation became a ubiquitous term. (…) Some observers said the term’s use added sophistication to any discussion. Others complained it was overused. Various forms of it regularly pop up in discussions about sports, for example. To his chagrin, users often apply it as a synonym for anything new or transformative, not understanding Christensen’s actual theory. The ubiquity worried him.
“If we call every business success a ‘disruption,’ then companies that rise to the top in very different ways will be seen as sources of insight into a common strategy for succeeding,” he once said. “This creates a danger: Managers may mix and match behaviors that are very likely inconsistent with one another and thus unlikely to yield the hoped-for result.”
(…) the term disruption has so many different connotations in the English language, that it allows people to justify whatever they want to do as, » [zotpressInText item=”{6267568:UP9LTSGQ}” style=”modern-language-association” format=”|%num%|”]
today it is necessary
to make leap again
in the definition of Innovation
The “mature” version of the Theory is found in C. Christensen’s book “Competing Against Luck”.
<read more on the real meaning of Disruptive InnovationC. Christensen and Purpose business (Job to be done)>
Bibliography
[zotpressInTextBib style=”apa” format=”|%num%|” forcenumber=”true”]
For an effective assessment of the quality of a product's innovation, the "TrendInsights's Guidelines to Disruptive Innovation" was developed, which offers:
1) an essential description of the meaning and methods of Disruptive innovation, and
2) a methodology for those who want to start a Disruptive Innovation business.
3) a Table summarizing the quality of the Disruptive Innovation for an assessment of business innovation capacity (usable both for developing a new Business and for analyzing Business already in progress).
<see "TrendInsights's Guidelines to Disruptive Innovation" >
