Hi Rick:

Thanks for continuing the dialog. I agree with much of what you have stated. That said, it’s not always necessary to “replace incumbents (and their technology)” in order to create disruption. However it is necessary to align their thinking with the change initiatives in play.

As a general rule, there are far too many guardians of the status quo. Likewise there are far too many out with the old, in with the new thinkers who represent little more than change agents solely for the sake of change. The key is to find balance – to always be on the lookout for the new disruptive opportunities, while not looking past the opportunity to discover the new from within the old. 

Hi Mike and thanks for your prompt and positive response,
My concern would be in the expectations one should have of Disruption – you see, when the Christensen observations are followed to their specific conclusions they provide far greater certaintly of success than when disruption is allowed to devolve into becoming “whatever works”.

One specific example would be that while it is well established that both radical and incremental innovations can be Disruptive well within the confines of the definition, it has also been shown (Raynor’s recent book has some examples) that dividing innovation into sustaining vs Disruptive, when combined with the type of organization (insider/incumbent vs outsider/Disruptor) provides a high-reliability indicator of probable success.

Building on those observations is absolutely a good/great idea, but just like any structure, to be reliable under the widest variety of conditions – that which is built on top must be consistent with what the foundation was designed to support. Leveraging the specific definitions is key to deriving real benefit from Clayton’s work. The bulk of the ideas you have put forward are not just incremental, but are of the sustaining (rather than the Disruptive) type – and thus are not likely to result in the removal of incumbents (and their technology) from dominance – which is the whole point of Disruption.

Thanks again for providing the opportunity to discuss,
Rick Mueller
http://www.linkedin.com/in/decisionscience

Hi Rick:

Thanks for your comment. Clayton’s insights are valuable and have contributed greatly to shaping the modern perspective on innovation best practices. That said, my point in authoring this post was merely to point out there are any number of path’s to creating disruption, and most of them occur within frameworks more commonly accessible than one would think. To hold to a design specific approach in finding disruptive opportunity is little more than a static approach. 

Don’t just follow Clayton’s observations – build on them. Stop learning and begin unlearning. Innovate on what he has laid down as a foundation for moving beyond “best” practices to “next” practices. 

There won’t be enough room in this note to go into all of the reasons why that is – and what the Christensen protocol entails exactly, but you are most welcome to join us at the Disruptive Innovation forum at LinkedIn where we try and make that difference (and the difference it brings to your business) ever more clear each and every day.

Rick Mueller
http://www.linkedin.com/in/decisionscience