Disruption is not a strategy
reactionwheel.net
Disruption is not a strategy
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#2There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning.
No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter).
You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossible to do it because you know what the future of that thing will be (hello Windows Mobile). Even ARM didn't know smartphones were going to be a thing, at the scale they are. ARM ate Intel's lunch, not by going after smartphones, but by making processors designed to work with virtually no power. Smartphones just happened to come along and need that.
You can't intend to be disruptive. You can aim to become a big business, but that's out-competing, not disrupting, and they're not the same (hello Snapchat). The market tells you you were disruptive after the fact.
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#3There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning. No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter). You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossi…
Good comment. However for future readers, I wish to point out that "ARM are Intel's lunch" is probably instead "ARM ate Intel's lunch".
That might save some confusion :)
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#4A great article.
One addition - the answer to the question why 'disruption' became so popular should include that it is so ego stroking.
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#5There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning. No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter). You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossi…
Good comment. However for future readers, I wish to point out that "ARM are Intel's lunch" is probably instead "ARM ate Intel's lunch". That might save some confusion :)
Edited. Good spot!
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#6Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good comment. However for future readers, I wish to point out that "ARM are Intel's lunch" is probably instead "ARM ate Intel's lunch". That might save some confusion :)
Edited. Good spot!
Also, is there a "don't" missing in "you know what the future of that thing will be"?
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#8Although I agree that having a business plan that's based on nothing more than a concept of "being disruptive" is not much of a plan at all, I feel that in some parts, he's picking a strawman and arguing against that.
He claims that "I’m sure what the presenter of the slide was getting at was Clayton Christensen’s definition of disruption from his classic book The Innovator’s Dilemma. ".
He then goes on to say (talking about Square and Uber) that "neither of these companies were disruptive in The Innovator’s Dilemma sense". However, I'd be surprised if the presenter wasn't thinking precisely of people like Uber and the type of "disruption" they've brought to the taxi industry.
So, if they are thinking of Uber, and if Uber's disruption isn't the sort being talked about in the Innovators dilemma, then I suspect they weren't thinking of Christensen’s definition at all.
I'm not sure why disruption has to be less functional - it just needs to be tackling the root problem (and often redefining what that root problem is) in a different way to the incumbent.
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#9There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning. No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter). You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossi…
But still, you can try to steer towards being disruptive when your choose your idea: you select unserved/underserved markets, or markets you can serve at lower profits than the incumbent, and do so using technologies you think can improve enough in performance/quality to compete with the incumbent while still having lower costs(which is a good way to choose a tech anyway).
And sure it doesn't guarrantee anything, but it increases your chances of disruption.
And with that, you still need to build a strategy and find barriers to entry. because (a)companies are more prepared towards disruptive innovation today , and (b)if you don't have good barriers to entry, once you become a threat, the incumbent will copy you.
Re: Disruption is not a strategy
#10Interesting perspective, color my beliefs altered. So far as tech goes I think that disruption could still be an outcome that you aim for (certainly not in medicine). Even then you may not plan for the eventuality, merely by serendipity absolutely know that you are sitting on a disruptive idea.
It's a great thing to have and maybe something that you can't plan for.