Comments on: Disruption and (non) Innovation, Part II

By: Fred McClimans

Fred McClimans — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:31:00 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my post – I appreciate the feedback.

As you pointed out, Christensen’s theory of Disruptive Innovation addresses and frames, fairly
well, many of the business trends and cycles that we see between emerging Davids and established Goliaths. But these posts are not intended to be a discussion of Disruptive Innovation in that sense.

Rather, I’m looking at disruption and innovation as unique, but often related, concepts and how they are applied by, or influence, individuals, businesses and social organizations. This includes how they can minimize the risk, or maximize the opportunities, that they present.

I’ll leave the discussion on Disruptive Innovation for another time.

By: Fred McClimans

Fred McClimans — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:19:00 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my post – I appreciate the feedback.

As you pointed out, Christensen’s theory of Disruptive Innovation addresses and frames, fairly
well, many of the business trends and cycles that we see between
emerging Davids and established Goliaths. But these posts are not intended to be a discussion of Disruptive Innovation in that sense.

I’ll leave the discussion on Disruptive Innovation for another time.

By: Fred McClimans

Fred McClimans — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:00 +0000

Hey Phil – I think what you are pointing to is really how certain environments can lead to more/better communication, exchanging of ideas, collaboration, etc. which serve as catalysts for innovative ideas to form and take root. In that sense, the use of strategies that create or leverage the right platform/ecosystem can definitely make innovation more likely. To flip it around, creating or using a business/development strategy that limits individuals can have the counter effect, and stifle creativity and innovation. I have a suspicion we’ll be talking about this more…

By: thinkdisruptive

thinkdisruptive — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:36:00 +0000

Your two articles together suggest that if you have read Christensen, you didn’t understand any of it. Disruptive innovation is a specific type of innovation. It’s a theory about markets, and how Davids emerge, seemingly from nowhere, to take on and defeat Goliaths. It describes why the incumbent (Goliath) is encumbered by their success and heretofore market dominance, and is unable to defend itself against the disruptor, even when they anticipate and see the market change coming.

Disruption and disruptive, as words on their own, obviously have more expansive meanings, but disruptive innovation has a single meaning, as a theory describing the process above, how and why it happens and the attributes shared by all disruptive innovations. It’s value is in helping to predict when disruption is likely, and therefore useful for product design, investment, business modeling and marketing strategy. All the excess stuff that you describe does nothing but confuse, and is no better than the myriad startups who think being disruptive is a customer benefit (and who came to you saying they had a disruptive strategy).

If you want to discuss disruptive innovation, you should talk about the theory. If you believe the theory has failings, talk about the failings and why. It isn’t helpful to overlay it with stuff that has nothing to do with the theory to try to explain why you don’t like the language.

By: Phil Simon

Phil Simon — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:04:00 +0000

Interesting post.

By definition, a strategy is not the same as an innovation.

True, but platform- and ecosystem-oriented strategies are more likely to result in innovations, right?