One of the sacred texts of the tech industry is The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen. The key to its seductive appeal lies in the subtitle: “When new technologies cause great firms to fail.”
The book was first published in 1997 and was based on a set of case studies which Christensen said showed that once-successful companies went under not because their managers made bad decisions, but because they kept making the same kind of decisions that had kept their customers happy for decades.
In doing so they overlooked products that other kinds of customer might one day want, thereby missing untapped opportunities that eventually turned into industry-transforming ones.
The “dilemma” of the book’s title is that doing the right thing — keeping your existing customers happy — may turn out to be the wrong thing to do.
The process that unhorses great companies is “disruptive innovation” driven by technology, Christensen said.
Some upstart firm invents and begins marketing a flaky — and, in the eyes of incumbents, inferior — product. This is not seen as a threat, because it is too crummy to interest established customers, who crave the premium quality, attentiveness and incremental improvements they get from incumbents.
Thus mainframe customers were thought unlikely to be interested in minicomputers. Then customers of minicomputers were deemed unlikely to be interested in personal computers. And so it went on until every organization in the world was addicted to personal computers.
The poster-child for Christensen’s theory of change is Kodak, the global company that completely dominated its industry — analog photography — and was eventually destroyed by a disruptive technology: digital imagery.
The delicious irony in the Kodak case was that it actually invented the technology that proved its undoing.
The Innovator’s Dilemma and the Big Idea that it spawned — disruptive innovation — has been kind to its author. Christensen is widely revered as a guru in the tech world.
The idea of disruptive innovation appeals to the vanity of the start-up culture: It conjures up images of high-IQ geeks subverting the empires of men in suits, or at any rate in chinos.
Christensen has extended his analysis to other, non-technological areas and industries. Education, for example, is apparently ripe for disruption. And of course companies such as Uber and Airbnb are supposedly bringing innovative disruption to the taxi and hotel industries respectively.
Everybody and his dog wants to be in the disruption business.
THE THIRD DEGREE
And then, a few weeks ago, a Harvard historian had the temerity to ask if Emperor Christensen had any clothes. Writing in the New Yorker, Jill Lepore gave The Innovator’s Dilemma the kind of unsympathetic third degree to which historians regularly subject the books of their professional peers. Her conclusion was unflattering, to say the least.
“Disruptive innovation as a theory of change is meant to serve both as a chronicle of the past (this has happened) and as a model for the future (it will keep happening). The strength of a prediction made from a model depends on the quality of the historical evidence and on the reliability of the methods used to gather and interpret it. Historical analysis proceeds from certain conditions regarding proof. None of these conditions have been met,” Lepore wrote.
Lepore’s excoriating analysis provoked interesting reactions. Christensen himself was baffled and outraged, like a Catholic cardinal who has been asked by an impertinent urchin why is he wearing a scarlet frock.
DISCERNMENT NEEDED
More generally, the Lepore critique prompted more self-aware folks to ask whether they should perhaps have been more discriminating in their use of the term.
“In the past few years, I’ve gotten literally hundreds of pitches for products billed as disruptive innovations. (My favorite? A wooden cuckoo clock, whose creator promised it would ‘add verve to more austere ambiences in search of a stylistic disruption’.),” industry observer Kevin Roose wrote. “I’ve been invited to conferences on disruption, seen books with titles like Disrupt! Think Epic. Be Epic, and read about USC’s [University of Southern California] new innovation program, which advertises a ‘degree in disruption.’”
“When everything is disruptive, nothing is. Which is exactly why it might be time to kill the word disruption altogether,” Rosse wrote.
Spot on. US business schools are sausage machines for the production of soi-disant big ideas such as Christensen’s.
It is a pernicious genre based on one simple principle: The “idea” must be big enough to seem profound, but it must not be so profound that it cannot be memorized by halfwits and used in PowerPoint presentations. The key thing, though, is that it must not, under any circumstances, be subjected to critical scrutiny.
Lepore has more work to do.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.