{"id":10135,"date":"2023-05-12T10:41:28","date_gmt":"2023-05-12T08:41:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/escp.eu\/thechoice\/?p=10135"},"modified":"2023-05-12T10:41:30","modified_gmt":"2023-05-12T08:41:30","slug":"how-to-avoid-getting-trapped-by-a-disruption-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/escp.eu\/thechoice\/tl-dr\/how-to-avoid-getting-trapped-by-a-disruption-strategy\/","title":{"rendered":"How to avoid getting trapped by a disruption strategy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As you will undoubtedly have noticed, in the lexicon of modern management the term \u201cdisruptive\u201d has become synonymous with radical innovation, sudden breakthroughs and technological revolutions rocking the very foundations of established industries. Examples of \u2018disruptive\u2019 technologies might include 3D printers, driverless cars or delivery by drone. But disruption actually has a more precise meaning, corresponding to a specific situation in the context of innovation management.<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The notion of disruptive innovation was first introduced by the Harvard Business School professor and consultant Clayton Christensen<\/a> in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail<\/em><\/a>, which led The Economist<\/em><\/a> to call him \u201cthe most influential management thinker of his time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As per Christensen\u2019s definition, disruption occurs when a new technology becomes dominant despite the fact that its performance is initially inferior to the performance of the technology it is replacing.<\/strong> A good example is the rise of digital photography at the expense of film. In the early days, digital photography was clearly inferior to the traditional method in terms of quality: the shots were blurry, the cameras were expensive and slow to use, and printing photos was difficult. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

To begin with, the performance of a disruptive innovation is actually inferior to the performance of existing technologies<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Something similar happened in computing, with personal computers supplanting mainframe computers virtually everywhere despite the fact that the latter offered much more power, security and speed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To begin with, the performance of a disruptive innovation is actually inferior to the performance of existing technologies. It is this initial performance deficit that cements the originality of the disruptive technology, and which makes established competitors blind to the change that is afoot:<\/strong> this genuine disadvantage reinforces the reigning champions\u2019 conservatism, allowing them to remain convinced of the superiority of their own technology. By the time they realise that the new technology is going to win out, it is usually too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n